Student: Solomatin Alexey;
Teacher: Liubov Khlystova;
High school “Didakt”, Zarechniy, Penza Region;
6, Komsomolskaya Street, 442960, Zarechniy, Penza region, Russia;
Fax: (8412) 60 81 67;
E-mail: didaktoffice@rambler.ru
Jump
to:
Non-treaty
approaches to space security
I. INTRODUCTION
It would not be an overestimation to state that the role of space
exploration in much major technological advancement has been crucial.
Space-based information systems, remote sensing of the earth,
telecommunications technology, space-based navigation such as GPS and GLONASS,
the monitoring of compliance with international treaties and others would not
have been developed without the existence of space. Some of the world's major
developed countries have based their sky-rocketing economies on such
technological developments. Early-warning, intelligence, meteorological and
geodesic (mapping) systems were made possible by advances in satellite and
space exploration technologies. So far the space sphere is free from weaponry,
as opposed to the land, sea and air spheres, which have all served as theaters
of war. It is indeed important to preserve space from further militarization.
The purpose of this paper to research deeper into people’s interaction in
space, try to understand the main goal of space programs of some countries.
Indicate the use, successes, failure of the programs. Investigate the roots of the Space Race, which was an informal competition between the United States and the Soviet Union that lasted roughly from 1957 to 19
75. Another kind of space race
may differ in nature from the original Soviet-American competition, as it could
occur between commercial space enterprises. Early efforts in what is commonly
referred to as space tourism, to run the first commercial trips into orbit. This paper assesses trends and developments related to
space security-relevant national and international laws, international
institutions, national space security
policies, and military space doctrines. Space security-relevant international
law has become progressively more extensive and now includes: the1967 Outer
Space Treaty, the 1968 Astronaut Rescue Agreement, the 1972 Liability
Convention, the 1975 Registration Convention, and the 1979 Moon Agreement.
These treaties establish the fundamental right of access to space, as well as
state responsibility to use space for peaceful purposes. They also remove space
from national appropriation and prohibit certain military space activities,
such as placing in outer space objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other
kinds of weapons of mass destruction. Finally, to describe position of some
governments, indicate existence and future defenses, which are related to space
security.
II. Space programs
Russia
When NASA
grounded future shuttle flights last week, a senior Russian space official even
proposed quickly building several Soyuz vehicles to evacuate the shuttle's crew
of seven along with the two-man crew of the international space station in case
the Discovery couldn't return.
"If we work
really hard, we can bring nine people down in January and February by three
Soyuzes," said Nikolai Sevastyanov, head of the state-controlled RKK
Energia rocket maker.
The proposal was
a bit hyperbolic -- the astronauts don't have food and water to last that long
-- but it reflected the esteem Russian space officials have for their veteran
spacecraft.
Russia's manned
space program has had no fatalities since three cosmonauts died during re-entry
in 1971, while 14 astronauts have been killed in space shuttle disasters during
the past two decades.
The Soyuz and its
unmanned cargo version, the Progress, date from the mid-1960s and can be used
only once, unlike the space shuttles. A Progress costs about $22 million and a
Soyuz slightly more. The newest shuttle, the Endeavour, cost $2 billion more
than a decade ago. [21]
Compared with the
roomy shuttle, the Soyuz is decidedly claustrophobic. Three cosmonauts have to
stay in their seats during the entire two-day trip to the international space
station. A Progress can carry only 2.75 tons of cargo, less than a fifth of
what a U.S. shuttle can haul.
But Russian space
officials and cosmonauts bristle at critics who point to their ship's age,
saying the latest version, the Soyuz TM, has modern engines and computers and
is similar to the original Soyuz only in general shape.
In the late
1980s, the Soviet space program built its own version of the shuttle, the
Buran, which made a successful maiden flight in 1988.
Soviet officials
claimed at the time that the Buran was superior to its American rival because
of its ability to fly on autopilot and its bigger capacity, but the program was
mothballed amid the chaos and money shortages before the Soviet Union's
collapse in 1991.
Several Buran
shuttles are rusting in hangars and one sits forlornly in a junkyard adjacent
to the railroad tracks that carry Soyuz assemblies to the launching pad at the
Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Another Buran is on display in Moscow's
Gorky Park.
In recent years,
though, earnings from Russian oil sales have allowed an increase in the space
agency's budget and its leaders are pondering a Soyuz replacement called
Clipper.
Nikolai Moiseyev,
deputy head of the Russian space agency, said recently that the Clipper would
be reusable but wouldn't be modeled on the U.S. shuttle or the Buran.
"Many experts believe that combining crew and cargo deliveries in one ship
is irrational from the point of view of safety," Moiseyev said.
Despite recent
funding increases, Russia's space budget of $638 million this year is dwarfed
by NASA's budget of $16.5 billion. Russian space officials are courting the
European Space Agency, offering to jointly develop the Clipper and share costs.
[21]
During the 2
1/2-year break in the shuttle program after the 2003 Columbia disaster, Russian
spacecraft served as the sole link to the international space station.
Russia and other
nations participating in the station project had been impatient to see the
shuttle's return to service because the U.S. craft are the only vehicles that
can deliver new modules and other bulky equipment needed to complete
construction of the space outpost.
In case of a
lengthy suspension of shuttle flights, Russian space officials warned they will
charge Americans for further Soyuz and Progress missions to the station.
Previous flights didn't earn Moscow any money because it needed to repay debts
to NASA, but officials say flights starting in 2006 will be conducted on
commercial basis.
USA
Apollo program
The Apollo program was designed to land humans on the
Moon and bring them safely back to Earth. Six of the missions (Apollos 11, 12, 14,
15, 16, and 17) did achieve this goal. Apollo 7 and Apollo 9 were Earth
orbiting missions and were designed to test the operating systems of the
Command and Lunar Modules including rendezvous radar and essential life support
systems. Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 tested various components while orbiting the
Moon, and returned photography of the lunar surface. Apollo 13 did not land on
the Moon due to a malfunction, but also returned photographs. The six missions
that landed on the Moon returned a wealth of scientific data and almost 400
kilograms of lunar samples. Experiments included soil mechanics, meteoroids, seismic,
heat flow, lunar ranging, magnetic fields, and solar wind experiments.
Skylab
Skylab was the first space station the United
States launched into orbit. The 75 metric tonne station was in Earth orbit from
1973 to 1979, and was visited by crews three times, in 1973 and 1974. It
included a laboratory for studying the effects of microgravity, and a solar
observatory. A Space Shuttle was planned to dock with and elevate Skylab to a
higher safe altitude, but Skylab reentered the atmosphere and was destroyed in
1979, before the first shuttle could be launched.
Shuttle era
The
space shuttle became the major focus of NASA in the late 1970s and the 1980s.
Planned to be a frequently launchable and mostly reusable vehicle, four space
shuttles were built by 1985. The first to launch, Columbia, did so on April 12, 1981.
The shuttle was not all good news for
NASA — flights were much more expensive than initially projected, and even
after the 1986 Challenger disaster highlighted the
risks of space flight, the public again lost interest as missions appeared to
become mundane. Work began on Space Station Freedom as a focus for the manned
space program but within NASA there was argument that these projects came at
the expense of more inspiring unmanned missions such as the Voyager probes. The
Challenger disaster, aside from the late 1980s, marked a low point
for NASA.
Nonetheless, the shuttle has been used
to launch milestone projects like the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). The HST was
created with a relatively small budget of $2 billion but has continued
operation since 1990 and has delighted both scientists and the public. Some of
the images it has returned have become near-legendary, such as the
groundbreaking Hubble Deep Field images. The HST is a joint project between the
European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA, and its success has paved the way for
greater collaboration between the agencies.
In 1995 Russian-American interaction
would again be achieved as the Shuttle-Mir missions began, and once more an
American vehicle docked with a Russian craft (this time a full-fledged space
station). This cooperation continues to the present day, with Russia and
America the two biggest partners in the largest space station ever built – the International
Space Station (ISS). The strength of their cooperation on this project was even
more evident when NASA began relying on Russian launch vehicles to service the
ISS following the 2003 Columbia disaster, which
grounded the shuttle fleet for well over two years.
Costing over one hundred billion
dollars, it has been difficult at times for NASA to justify the ISS. The population
at large have historically been hard to impress with details of scientific
experiments in space, preferring news of grand projects to exotic locations.
Even now, the ISS cannot accommodate as many scientists as planned.
During much of the 1990s, NASA was
faced with shrinking annual budgets due to Congressional belt-tightening in
Washington, DC. In response, NASA's ninth administrator, Daniel S. Goldin,
pioneered the "faster, better, cheaper" approach that enabled NASA to
cut costs while still delivering a wide variety of aerospace programs (Discovery
Program). That method was criticized and re-evaluated following the twin losses
of Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander in 1999. Yet, NASA's shuttle
program had made 116 successful launches as of December 2006.
The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003, which killed the crew of six Americans and one Israeli,
caused a 29-month hiatus in space shuttle flights and triggered a serious
re-examination of NASA's priorities. The U.S. government, various scientists,
and the public all considered the future of the space program. [31]
China
China launched its space
program on April 24, 1970. In the past 30 years, the country has launched 73 of
its own carrier rockets, of which 62 successfully. They put 48 Chinese and 27
foreign satellites into near-earth orbits. The Chinese launches
included:
·
2 unmanned Shenzhou (Magic Vessel) capsules;
·
11 DFH (Dong Fang Hong, The East is Red)
communications satellites;
·
17 FSW (Fanhui Shi Weixing) Recoverable Test
Satellites;
·
2 Beidou (Star Dipper) navigation satellites;
·
5 FY (Feng Yun, Wind and Cloud) weather satellites;
·
2 DQ (Da Qi, Atmosphere) atmospheric research
satellites;
·
6 SJ (Shi Jian, Practice) research satellites;
·
3 JSSW (Ji Shu Shiyan Weixing) Technical Test
Satellites;
·
2 ZY (Zi Yuan, Resource) remote sensing satellites.
Most of the Chinese
launches were for the military. Between 1973 and 1976 there were six launches
of JSSW experimental satellites onboard FB-1 (Feng Bao, Storm) from the Jiuquan
Satellite Launching Center in northern China (40.6° north latitude, 99.9°
east longitude). Three of them never made it into orbit due to
malfunctions of the launch vehicles. The JSSW satellites were apparently
intended to fine-tune the systems and thrusters of future satellites. It is
possible that equipment for various types of surveillance (optical, radio and
radio engineering) was also perfected on these satellites. But this series of
satellites was discontinued. The launch vehicles were also shelved. The
mysterious end to the JSSW and FB-1 programs coincided with the death of Mao
Zedong.
The most obviously
military was the FSW, a photo reconnaissance satellite. Officially, China said
that these were remote sensing satellites to photograph the Earth for civilian
purposes. Of the 17 satellites in this series launched between 1974 and 1996,
three generations clearly stand out.
The first satellites to
be launched, dubbed FSW-0, were obviously experimental and intended to
fine-tune onboard systems, special equipment and recovery systems for the
photographs taken. Four FSW-0 were launched between 1974 and 1978, the first of
which did not make it into orbit due to a malfunction of the launch vehicle.
These satellites were launched on CZ-2 (Chang Zheng, Long March) rockets from
Jiuquan. The satellites consisted of an airtight instrumentation compartment
and a recoverable capsule that contained the photo equipment. The FSW-0
remained in orbit for three days.
The experimental phase
in the development of the reconnaissance satellites was completed in 1978. All
subsequent FSW were operative. Six operational first-generation FSW were put
into orbit between 1982 and 1987 using CZ-2C launch vehicles, all successfully.
These satellites had an orbit life of five days. The 1,800-kg satellites had a
diameter of 2.1 meters and length of 3.14 meters. The operating orbit as a rule
had an inclination of 63° and altitude of 175х410
km, which is typical for optical observation satellites.
In the mid-1980s these
satellites, dubbed FSW-1, were updated, which extended their flight time to 7-8
days. There were few external changes, but the insides were reworked
considerably, including the complete replacement of the payload. The satellite
gained 300 kg with an increase in fuel reserves and backup batteries for the
electrical systems. The FSW-1 satellites were taken into orbit on the same
CZ-2C rockets. Five FSW-1 were launched between 1987 and 1993, all
successfully.
A new modification was
finally developed at the turn of the decade, the FSW-2, weighing 2,500 to 3,100
kg and with an orbit life of 15 days. Three FSW-2 were successfully put into
orbit between 1992 and 1996 by a more powerful version of the CZ-2C, the CZ-2D,
which were again launched from Jiuquan.
The FSW satellites
apparently allowed China to conduct photoreconnaissance from space for the
People’s Liberation Army (PLA), surveying the territory of neighboring
countries, and determining the coordinates of strategic facilities for
targeting by nuclear missiles, as well as map the territory of China and other
countries. The photo equipment onboard the FSW satellites probably had a
resolution of several meters.
The launches of the FSW
satellites were rare compared to similar programs conducted by the United
States and the Soviet Union, which had at least one spy satellite in orbit
almost constantly. The FSW were launched about once a year, so their military
usefulness was quite limited. Only the last generation of these satellites had
orbital maneuvering capabilities, allowing them to get better pictures of the
required regions.
The FSW satellites were,
however, quite reliable. Of the 17 satellites launched in the course of 21 years,
16 were successfully recovered. The only failure was in October 1993, when on
its fifth flight the FSW-1 satellite moved into a higher orbit due to incorrect
attitude control when the thruster was fired, and 18 months later made an
uncontrolled descent into the atmosphere.
These satellites allowed
China to perfect recovery technology, which was then used for its manned space
program. The FSW also carried out a number of commercial programs in materials
technology and life sciences under contracts with France, Germany and Japan.
After the flight of the FSW-III in 1996, China announced that it was ending the
program. Press reports of a possible fifth-generation of FSW satellites have
never been confirmed.
A number of Chinese
space systems, including those used by the PLA, were support systems, primarily
communications satellites. The first DFH-1 satellite was classified as such,
although it amounted to just a low-orbit radio transmitter, more along the
lines of the first Soviet artificial satellites. Only in 1984 did China put a
full-fledged communications satellite, the DFH-2, into a geostationary orbit.
It had a launch mass of 900 kg, diameter of 2.1 meters and height of 3.1
meters. The payload consisted of four C band (6/4 GHz) transponders. In 1986 the
country began launching operational satellites classified as DFH-2A. The
DFH-2/2A were put into orbit by the CZ-3 three-stage launch vehicles with a
cryogenic upper stage. The satellites were launched from the Xichang space
center in southeastern China (28.25° north latitude, 102.3° east
longitude), which was built especially to put satellites into geostationary
orbits since the first Chinese launch center at Jiuquan was too far from the
Equator. Between 1984 and 1991 China attempted to launch seven DFH-2/2A
satellites, five of which reached their intended orbit.
In 1994 China began
launching the DFH-3 generation of satellites, which had a launch mass of about
2,300 kg, dimensions of 2.2x2.2x1.7 meters, and solar array span of 18.1 meters
in orbit. These satellites had up to 24 transponders, what is more than
contemporary Russian Express communications satellites had, though half the
number of the best western models. The military purpose of the DFH-3 became
obvious when “civil” satellites called ChinaSat began to be launched in
parallel. Nonetheless, some of the transponders of the DFH-3 were leased to
non-military users. Only two such satellites have been put into orbit so far,
although the platform of the DFH-3 served as the basis for new geostationary satellites
such as the Zhongxing-22 retransmitter, Beidou navigation satellite, and the
future FY-4 weather satellites.
China began launching
the FY-1 weather satellites in 1988. The T’ai Yuan launch center in eastern
China (37.5° north latitude, 112.6° east longitude) was built to put these
satellites into solar-synchronous orbits. They were put into orbit by the CZ-4A
and CZ-4B launch vehicles. The PLA uses the satellites to provide
meteorological support for its operations. The first two - FY-1A and FY-1B -
were launched in 1988 and 1990. They carried scanners with only three visible
and two infrared spectral channels. But the FY-1C launched in 1999 already had
four visible and six infrared channels, providing much more detailed
meteorological data.
In 1997 and 2000
China put two FY-2A and FY-2B geostationary meteorological satellites into
orbit. They provided global weather data. The satellites were built on the
DFH-3 platform, and carried three-channel scanners with two infrared and one
visible channel.[12]
Russian current programs
ISS involvement
The Zarya module
was the first module of the ISS, launched in 1998
[34]
The Russian Space Agency is one of the partners in the
International Space Station (ISS) program, it contributed the core space
modules Zarya and Zvezda, which were both launched by Proton rockets and later
were joined by NASA's Unity Module. Roskosmos is furthermore responsible for
expedition crew launches by Soyuz-TMA spacecrafts and resupplies the space
station with Progress space transporters. After the initial ISS contract with
NASA expired, RKA and NASA, with the approval of the US government, entered
into a space contract running until 2011, according to which Roskosmos will
sell NASA spots on Soyuz spacecrafts for approximately $21 million per person
each way (thus $42 million to and back from the ISS per person) as well as
provide Progress transport flights ($50 million per progress as oultined in the
ESAS study). RKA has announced that according to this arrangement, manned Soyuz
flights will be doubled to 4 per year and Progress flights also doubled to 8
per year beginning in 2008.
RKA also provides space tourism for fare-paying
passengers to ISS through the Space Adventures company. Currently three space
tourists have contracted with Roskosmos and have flown into space, each for an
announced fee of $20 million. Despite the price, the space tourism venture has
proven to be very popular and all tourism flights are fully booked until 2009.
Roskosmos has committed itself to further provide two
additional modules to the ISS, both scheduled to be launched by Proton rockets.
The first one, the Multipurpose Laboratory Module is currently scheduled for
launch in 2007 or 2008, with one Russian Research Module following in 2009.
Science programs
RKA operates a number of other programs for earth
science, communication, and scientific research. Future projects include the
Soyuz successor, the shuttle Kliper, scientific robotic missions to one of the
Mars moons as well as an increase in Earth orbit research satellites.
Rockets
Roskosmos is using a launch family of several rockets,
the most famous of them is the R-7, commonly known as the Soyuz rocket, capable
of launching about 7.5 tons into low Earth orbit (LEO). The Proton rocket (or
UK-500) also developed in the 60s but still flying, has a lift capacity of over
20 tons to LEO. Smaller rockets include Cosmos-3M, the German-Russian
cooperation Rockot and other launchers.
Currently rocket development encompasses both a new
rocket system, Angara, as well as enhancements of the Soyuz rocket, Soyuz-2 and
Soyuz-3. One modification of the Soyuz, the Soyuz-2a has already been
successfully tested, enhancing the launch capacity to 8 tons to LEO, with the
Soyuz-2b to follow this year with a launch capacity from Baikonur of 8.5 tons.
RKA manages by far the most commercial launches per year,
in 2005 it performed nearly 50 % of all commercial satellite launches into
space.
Kliper
Winged Kliper mockup at the Le
Bourget Air Show [34]
One of RKA's projects that has made a large impact on the
media in 2005 is Kliper, a small lifting body reusable spacecraft. While
Roskosmos has reached out to ESA and JAXA as well as others to share
development costs of the project, it also has stated that it will go forward
with the project even without support of other space agencies. This statement
was backed by the above-described approval of its budget for 2006-2015 which
includes the necessary funding of Kliper.
Information on Kliper's entry into service and
development status vary. Some sources state 2010 as the target year of first
orbital test flight, others, 2012. In January, 2006, the final decision on
Kliper was anticipated to be made from among three proposals from several
Russian contractors with a decision to be announced in February. Later, the
result of formal bidding on the project was expected to be revealed in July.
However, RKA reportedly issued a statement in late July that bidding for the
Kliper program had been cancelled due to the insufficiency of the bids
tendered. It was believed that there would a two-year period within which the
future direction of the program would be determined.
Russian spacecraft upgrade program
It has recently been reported that Kliper and Parom will
be developed as part of Russian manned and cargo spacecraft
"overhaul". It also appears that the joint spacecraft development
study with ESA will be the enaugural stage of this overhaul program. According
to the article, the spacecraft upgrade program stages are:
- Stage one: Starting in 2007, upgrade of Soyuz space
vehicles. As a rule, each Soyuz crew consists of two professional
astronauts and one space tourist. The revamped Soyuz, due to lift off in
2011, will carry two professionals and two passengers. Most importantly,
it will be able to dock with the International Space Station, fly around
the Moon and return to Earth at speeds of about 25,000 miles per hour, the
equivalent of its escape velocity. (Note the similarity to ESA
requirements - this may effectively make CSTS development redundant)
- Stage Two: Development of the Parom (Ferry) reusable
transport system, which will replace the Progress cargo craft. The Parom
system will comprise a reusable orbiter and expendable 12-metric-ton
freight containers. This is a remarkable achievement because Progress spacecraft
can now deliver just 2.5 metric tons of dry and liquid cargo to the ISS.
- Stage Three: This stage will witness the
launch of a Kliper-type reusable space shuttle featuring technologies that
will be streamlined during the first and second stages. [34]
US space program
The USA has been one of the leaders in the Space Race. There
accomplishments include:
Space Shuttle
Program
Current and past Space Shuttle's applications include:
1) Crew rotation and servicing of Mir and the ISS
2) Manned servicing missions, such as to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST)
3) Manned experiments in LEO
4) Carry to LEO:
-Large satellites — these have included the HST
-Components for the construction of the ISS
-Supplies in Spacehab modules or Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules
5) Carry satellites
with a booster, the Payload Assist Module (PAM-D) or the Inertial Upper Stage
(IUS), to the point where the booster sends the satellite to:
a) A higher Earth
orbit; these have included:
-Chandra X-ray Observatory
-Many TDRS
satellites
-Two DSCS-III
(Defense Satellite Communications System) communications satellites in one
mission
-A Defense Support
Program satellite
b) An
interplanetary orbit; these have included:
-Magellan probe
-Galileo spacecraft
-Ulysses probe [37]
Hubble Space
Telescope
[10]
Named after the
trailblazing astronomer Edwin P. Hubble (1889-1953), the Hubble Space Telescope
(HST) is a large, space-based observatory which has revolutionized astronomy by
providing unprecedented deep and clear views of the Universe, ranging from our
own solar system to extremely remote fledgling galaxies forming not long after
the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.
Hubble to be Serviced Again Administrator Michael Griffin’s decision on
October 31, 2006 to fly servicing mission SM4 in mid- to late-2008 will bring
unique capabilities to Hubble in the form of two new science instruments,
Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and Wide Field Camera 3. In addition, new gyros and
batteries will extend Hubble's life through 2013.
Launched in 1990 and greatly extended in its scientific powers through
new instrumentation installed during four servicing missions with the Space
Shuttle, the Hubble, in its sixteen years of operations, has validated Lyman
Spitzer Jr.'s (1914-1997) original concept of a diversely instrumented
observatory orbiting far above the distorting effects of the Earth’s atmosphere
and returning data of unique scientific value.
Hubble's coverage of light of different colors (its "spectral range")
extends from the ultraviolet, through the visible (to which our eyes are
sensitive), and into the near-infrared. Hubble's primary mirror is 2.4
meters (94.5 inches) in diameter. Hubble is not large by ground-based standards
but it achieves heroically in space. Hubble orbits Earth every 97 minutes, 575
kilometers (360 miles) above the Earth's surface.[10]
Participation in the
International Space Station
Russia's Mir
Space Station has been in orbit for over 10 years. The first element of the
station was launched on February 20, 1986 at an inclination of 51.6 degrees.
The current Mir Space Station is actually a complex of different modules that
have been pieced together.
[61]
The Mir module, the first module of the complex placed in orbit, is the
main module of the station. It provides docking ports for the other modules to
attach to. There are five docking ports on the transfer compartment of the Mir
module. One along the long axis of the module, and 4 along the radius in 90
degree increments. There is another docking port on the aft end of the Mir
module. The various modules that are attached to the docking ports can be moved
around to different configurations. [16]
Apollo Moon Program
Project Apollo was a series of human spaceflight missions undertaken by the
United States of America (NASA) using the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn launch
vehicle, conducted during the years 1961 – 1974. It was devoted to the goal (in
U.S. President John F. Kennedy's famous words) of "landing a man on the
Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" within the decade of the
1960s. This goal was achieved with the Apollo 11 mission in July 1969.
The program continued into the early 1970s to carry out the initial
hands-on scientific exploration of the Moon, with a total of six successful
landings. As of 2007, there has not been any further human spaceflight beyond
low earth orbit. The later Skylab program and the joint American-Soviet
Apollo-Soyuz Test Project used equipment originally produced for Apollo, and
are often considered to be part of the overall program.
Despite the many successes, there were two major failures, the first of
which resulted in the deaths of three astronauts, Virgil Grissom, Ed White and
Roger Chaffee, in the Apollo 1 launchpad fire (the mission designation was
AS-204, which was renamed Apollo 1 in the astronauts' widows' honor). The
second was an explosion on Apollo 13, in whose aftermath the deaths of three
more astronauts were averted by the efforts of flight controllers, project
engineers, and backup crewmembers.
The Apollo project was named after the Greek god of the sun.[38]
China
current program
Hampered as it was by
limited financing for space programs, a big technological lag behind the United
States and the Soviet Union, and insufficient production potential, China in
the 1970s and 1980s had comparatively modest successes in space, and its
military applications in particular. The country’s military and political
leaders initially seem to have assigned little importance to military space
technology. China at the time was ruled by the doctrine of a “big army” that
succeeded by numbers, not quality.
In the 1980s and
beginning of the 1990s, China’s leaders began to take the national space
program more seriously, but also began to view it more pragmatically. Efforts
were only poured into the development of areas that land-based systems could
not replace. China did not try to catch up to the United States or Soviet Union
in areas such as manned space flight and planetary research, which would have brought
a great deal of international prestige but at a huge cost. According to
unofficial information, China’s space budget in the early 1990s was about $1
billion, which amounted to less than a tenth of the budget of NASA. This amount
of funding and the country’s industrial capabilities allowed it to launch no
more than three or four of its own satellites per year.
This is the average pace
of rocket launches that China maintained from the late 1980s. Chinese
specialists said privately that this is how many satellites and launch vehicles
the country’s aerospace industry was capable of building.
In 1990 China, having
acquired a wide range of launch vehicles, began commercial launches of foreign
satellites. The number of launches of domestic satellites, meanwhile, decreased
and the overall number stayed at four or five per year, which again points to
the country’s limited ability to build launch vehicles. Since April 1990
Chinese launch vehicles have put 27 foreign satellites and dummy satellites
into orbit. Another three were lost between 1992 and 1996 as a result of launch
vehicle failures.
The commercial programs
allowed China to raise extra cash to develop its industrial capabilities, but
this revenue, averaging no more than $100 million per year, was much less than
budget funding. Commercial launches alone could not raise enough financing to
rapidly develop the aerospace industry.
Around the turn of
1992-1993, the country’s political leadership seriously reviewed its attitude
towards the national space program. This decision was apparently influenced by
the use of space technology in the wars and conflicts of the early 1990s,
especially during the war in the Persian Gulf. Moreover, China at this time
entered a period of rapid economic growth and began to see a massive influx of
foreign investment. The country’s military doctrine also changed, moving in
favor of high-tech weapons systems. China began to buy up the latest weapons
from other countries, especially Russia. The country also strived to get its
hands on the latest technologies. Where it was unable to develop them on its
own, it found other means of obtaining them, such as joint ventures,
participation in international programs and, as a last resort, outright
purchases. This applied to the Chinese aerospace industry as well.
Chinese politicians’
greater attention to space issues also brought an increase in budget funding.
By the end of the 1990s, the country’s space budget was already estimated at
$6.5 billion. The increase in funding and development of technology lead to a
qualitative leap in China’s space program. In 1999-2001 China began
implementing a number of new space projects. Besides the successful tests of
the Shenzhou spacecraft for manned flight, there were major achievements in
both civilian and military space applications.
The success of such
serious programs as the piloted ship, geostationary navigation satellite, and
optical-electronic Earth observation satellite seem to have fueled the
country’s ambitions in space. The director of the China National Space
Administration and the deputy head of the science, technology and industry
commission at the National Defense Ministry, Luan Enjie, talked about the
government’s space strategy for the 21st century at an exhibition in November
2000. This
strategy includes:
·
create technological infrastructure with emphasis on
innovation research to make breakthroughs in key technologies;
·
encourage and support aerospace companies with the aim
of fostering commercial success, establishing international standards and
promoting space technologies and their application in production;
·
improve products and education media in order to boost
confidence in the products of the aerospace sector and expanding sales markets;
·
speed up the formation of aerospace groups, recruit
talented young people to form highly-qualified teams of technical specialists,
popularize space sciences in order to mobilize public support for aerospace
research;
·
use approaches such as “setting out priorities,”
“active support,” “adequate development,” and “advanced research” to coordinate
efforts in the area of space;
·
promote “Project 211” with the aim of creating a
single satellite platform, a new generation of launch vehicles, and complete
the formation of an integrated satellite system to further the country’s
economic interests;
·
understand the importance of space sciences and
research of deep space, and make manned programs a priority.[12]
China
great wall industries
The Chinese Space Program began with the launch of the satellite Mao1 on
April 24, 1970. As the small satellite circled the globe it kept playing the
Chinese national anthem "The East is Red" until the spacecraft's
power supply quit in June of 1971. Learning lessons from both the Russians and
the Americans the Chinese have created a credible space enterprise.
The major Chinese launch vehicle is called the Long March in
commemoration of Mao Tze Tung's historic march in 1934 to escape the armies of
Chaing Kai Shek. The first Chinese space launchers was named the Chang Zheng
(Long March) 2, and every follow-on vehicle retained this name. The current
Chinese launchers are the CZ-3 and the CZ-4. The original CZ vehicles used
hypergolic fuels, but the follow-on launchers upper stages used liquid hydrogen
and liquid oxygen for propellant. Until 1984 only the Americans and the
Europeans had used cryogenic fuel for upper stages; the Chinese have
successfully used these upper stages in all of their launch vehicles since that
time.
The Chinese have three launch sites which they use depending upon the
mission required for the particular satellite. The major development launch
site is located in the Gobi Desert at about 40°N and 100°E near the town of
Jiuquan. It was here that the first Chinese satellites were launched and the
first Chinese ICBMs were developed. Around 1980 a site was developed in
southern China for GEO launches. This area is in the mountains near the village
of Xichang. With the advent of a mature reconnaissance program came the need
for a sun synchronous capable site. Launching to the southwest, China could
have dropped a number of first stages on some unfriendly neighbors such as
Vietnam and India. Rather than have a international incident develop after each
launch, the Chinese developed a new retrograde launch site at Taiyuan in
September 1988.
The Chinese have parlayed their launch capability into a successful
commercial enterprise by lowering the prices substantially to cut into ESA and
the American market. To accomplish this commercial market, the Chinese have
established the Great Wall Industry Corporation. Several different countries
have used the Chinese launchers successfully including the US (Hughes
Corporation), Australia (AUSSAT), and Hong Kong (Asiasat). During the first
months of 1995 the Chinese launch capabilities were hampered by two disasters
which destroyed two Hughes Corporation communications satellites. One of the
failures at Xichang rained debris upon a village and killed 6 Chinese
civilians. To become competitive again the Chinese will have to obviously fix
their problem and establish better quality control standards. [41]
OTHER
SPACE PROGRAMS
Besides the U.S., Russia, and ESA there are a number of other countries
with space programs. In addition to Canada, Japan, and China a few third world
countries have advanced their status by launching their own rockets and in some
cases their own satellites. This section will discuss other space programs to
gain appreciation of the fact that space exploration is a world adventure for
all members of the human species. The major expensive space explorations of the
future may very well be truly the movement, not of specific countries, but
humankind as a whole reaching beyond our planet into space.
THE
CANADIAN SPACE PROGRAM
The Canadian Space Program is extensive for a country with such a small
population base. The Canadian Space Agency was created in March 1989 to manage
Canada's civil space program. The Federal Government spends about $500 million
annually and employs 3500 people permanently.
The International Space Station represents Canada's most significant
expenditure in space. The Mobile Service Facility uses the vast experience
obtained from the space shuttle's remote manipulator system (RMS) manufactured
by the Canadian firm SPAR Aerospace Ltd. Canada has also had a very successful
remote sensing program with their Radarsat 1 program the world's first
operational civil radar satellite. A Radarsat 2 is in future plans. Canada has
a special partnership with ESA contributing about $6 million annually to ESA's
general fund.
There have been several Canadian astronauts who have flown aboard the
space shuttle. Marc Garneau first flew aboard the shuttle in 1984 followed by
Roberta Bondar in January 1992 and Steve MacLean in October 1992. Four more
astronauts have been selected for future flights. They include an Air Force
Pilot, Major Chris Hadfield; an Air Force Electrical Engineer, Captain Michael
McKay; computer engineer Julie Payette; and Dr. Dafydd Williams, MD. These
Canadian Astronauts will train with NASA as required for future missions.
Recently efforts have been made to build a Canadian Launch Facility on
Hudson Bay near Churchill, Manitoba. Sounding rockets, vertical launches, and
suborbital payloads seem to be the current planned missions for the new spaceport.
Japan
NASDA
The National Aeronautics and Space Development Agency (NASDA) is the
Japanese Space Agency. NASDA has been extremely busy the last few years with a
number of successful space programs. NASDA is hampered in its launching
activities from its two major launch sites of Kagoshima and Tanegashima because
of the Japanese Fishing Industry. A compromise was worked a number of years ago
when NASDA agreed not to launch during the height of the fishing season. This
means that Japan only launches from its launch sites at the end of January, the
entire month of February and the first of March. Another launch window opens at
the end of August, through the month of September, and at the very beginning of
October. The rest of the time the Japanese space program plans very carefully
how to use their time.
The latest Japanese triumph is the H2 space launcher. This cryogenic
vehicle has successfully launched several LEO payloads and will be able
eventually to support manned space plane operations and the international space
station. The H2 has the capability of placing a 2 ton payload into GEO, a 10
ton payload into LEO, and launching deep space probes as well. The liquid
hydrogen and liquid oxygen fueled space launcher has a number of different
available options for space flight. Using six boosters, the H2 will be able to
place 15 tons into a 300 km orbit. Replacing the two solid strap-ons with
liquid strap-ons will raise this capacity to 24 tons. Four methane engines
could boost 27 tons into a similar orbit.
The Japanese are currently developing a space plane called Hope. Hope is
to be unmanned and is to provide servicing missions to the Japanese Experiment
module aboard the International Space Station. Using the H2 for a launcher the
vehicle would take two days to automatically rendezvous and dock with the space
station. The 10 ton version of Hope would then dispatch one tone of cargo. The
vehicle would undock and return to Earth for more cargo. Hope has a maximum
on-orbit time of 100 hours and a cross range capability of 1500 km. Hope would
also serve as a technology demonstrator for future spacecraft. A 20 ton Hope is
being designed concurrently with the 10 ton version. NASDA hopes this will
eventually lead to a manned version of the vehicle or even lead to a single
stage to orbit craft.
Indian
space program
India has a great need for the capabilities which space can give it.
With almost 1 billion people within its borders, India relies heavily on
agriculture which means remote sensing and meteorological data are a necessity.
Combine these with a communications system for a country with a vast
north-to-south distance and you have the natural need for a vigorous space
program.
India has wasted no time in trying to establish an independent space
capability. This country was formerly dependent on the US and the Soviet Union
for their space vehicles and now India has developed its own indigenous remote
sensing satellite. As Landsat 4 and 5 get older and less capable, the United
States will have to rely upon India for the continuation of its remote sensing
data base. The Indian Space Program has signed a contract with the American
remote sensing company EOSAT to provide thermal mapping data in similar bands
to Landsat. After the American failure of Landsat 6 and the possible demise of
Landsat 7, the Indian remote sensing satellites remain the only way for the
U.S. to collect data. Even though the French SPOT has four bands for remote
sensing, none of them are as extensive as the Indian satellite. The pupil has
now surpassed the teacher in the area of remote sensing as the U.S. will use
the EOSAT station in Norman, Oklahoma for collecting Indian remote sensing
data.
The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) runs the program from
Bangalore in the southern part of the country. At Sriharikota the Indians have
established a mature launch site which has launched the SLV and ASLV rockets
with orbital payloads. The Rohini 1 satellite was successfully launched from
Sriharikota on July 18, 1980. The Indian Space Program will continue with more
advanced payloads being launched aboard more sophisticated launch vehicles. [39]
|
Russian program for
future |
||||||
|
|
|
|||||
MOSCOW,
April 7 (RIA Novosti) - Government spending on space programs will increase in
the next ten years, the country's top space official said Friday.
Space agency head
Anatoly Perminov said the government would allocate 5 billion rubles ($180
million) more for its space program this year than last, and would boost
funding further in the next decade.
"Some 18.3
billion rubles [about $663 million] was allocated for the implementation of the
old federal space program last year, and this year we already have 23 billion
[$832 million] under the new program," he said.
Perminov also
said that in the past few years all treasury money earmarked for space projects
had arrived without delay.
The agency said
underfunding in 2001-2003 prevented completion of seven projects under the
previous federal space program, which ran through 2005. Actual allocations then
fell 26% short of the due sum, curtailing construction of the Express-M,
Luch-M, Gonets-M, and Resurs-DK satellites, a Soyuz-2 launch vehicle, and a
Nadezhda booster.
But if steady
funding is maintained, the agency said, the number of Russian spacecraft in
orbit will increase dramatically in the next decade.
The agency plans
to launch 21 telecommunications satellites, a two-satellite multipurpose relay
system, 12 mobile communications satellites, five meteorological satellites,
five environmental monitoring satellites, and a number of observatories and
spacecraft for astrophysical and biomedical research, as well as for solar and
lunar exploration.
Russia will also
contribute two spacecraft to the global satellite-aided search-and-rescue
system Cospas-Sarsat and seven modules to the International Space Station, the
agency said.[15]
USA program for future
.jpg){kind=small}
Left to Right: Saturn V, which last carried men to the
Moon, the Space Shuttle and the planned Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles
[31]
NASA's ongoing investigations include in-depth surveys of
Mars and Saturn and studies of the Earth and Sun. Other NASA spacecraft are
presently en route to Mercury and Pluto. With missions to Jupiter in planning
stages, NASA's itinerary covers over half the solar system.
Scheduled to launch in 2007, Phoenix shall search for
possible underground water courses in the northern Martian pole. This lander
revives much of its experiments and instrumentation from the failed 1999 Mars
Polar Lander, hence its name. An improved and larger rover, the Mars Science
Laboratory, is under construction and slated to launch in 2009. On the horizon
of NASA's plans, a number of possibilities are under consideration for the Mars
2011 mission.
The New Horizons mission to Pluto was launched in 2006 and
will fly by Pluto in 2015. The probe will receive a gravity assist from Jupiter
in February 2007, and will examine some of Jupiter's inner moons during the
fly-by.
Vision for
space exploration
On January 14, 2004, ten days after the landing of Spirit, President George W. Bush announced a new plan for NASA's future, dubbed
the Vision for Space Exploration. According to this plan, humankind will return
to the Moon by 2018, and set up outposts as a testbed and potential resource
for future missions. The space shuttle will be retired in 2010 and Orion will
replace it by 2014, capable of both docking with the ISS and leaving the
Earth's orbit. The future of the ISS is somewhat uncertain — construction will
be completed, but beyond that is less clear. Although the plan initially met
with skepticism from Congress, in late 2004 Congress agreed to provide start-up
funds for the first year's worth of the new space vision.
Orion Contractor Selected Aug. 31, 2006, at NASA
Headquarters
[31]
Hoping to spur innovation from the private sector, NASA
established a series of Centennial Challenges, technology prizes for
non-government teams, in 2004. The Challenges include tasks that will be useful
for implementing the Vision for Space Exploration, such as building more
efficient astronaut gloves.
Mission statement
From 2002, NASA’s mission statement, used in budget and
planning documents, read: “To understand and protect our home planet; to
explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of
explorers ... as only NASA can.” In early February 2006, the statement was
altered, with the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet” deleted.
Some outside observers believe the change is related to criticism of
government policy on global warming by NASA scientists like James Hansen, but
NASA officials have denied any such connection, pointing to new priorities for
space exploration. The chair and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs wrote NASA Administrator Griffin on
July 31, 2006 expressing concerns about the change. NASA also
canceled or delayed a number of earth science missions in 2006.
Moon base
On December 4, 2006, NASA announced they were planning to
build a permanent moon base. NASA Associate Administrator Scott
Horowitz said the goal was to start building the moonbase by 2020, and by 2024,
they expect to have continued presence at the base with crew rotations like the
International Space Station. Additionally, NASA plans to collaborate and
partner with other nations for this project.[31]
China’s
space program for future
China’s space program is now at a turning point. The
resources invested in the past seven or eight years are starting to yield
qualitative changes, which are taking place more rapidly than most experts had
expected. The wide range of international cooperation in space has also had a
major impact on the rate of development of Chinese aeronautics and its
technological sophistication.
Even the directors of the Chinese space program
themselves are sometimes unable to follow and assess the rapidly changing
situation. For example, on October 15, 2000, Zhou Zhicheng of CAST told the
Xinhua agency that the Chinese space industry is facing serious problems due to
lack of financing and poor technology. Chinese commercial satellites lag far
behind foreign ones in construction and characteristics. China needs to review
the basic principles of developing and managing programs, and expand exchanges
of specialists with foreign companies, he said.
At the same time the president of the same academy, Li
Zuhong, said that most Chinese satellites work well and China, which has
focused on quality, will soon be ready to enter the international market with
fast and economically viable serial production of satellites. Lin Huabao, the
chief designer of Chinese satellites, agreed, saying that China would soon
speed up development and construction of large communications satellites that
will meet international standards.
At the rate of development seen in the past two to
three years, China could justifiably earn the status of a space superpower in
five to seven years. One more fact is indicative.
From January 21 to 26, 2001, the United States held
training exercises dubbed Space Wargame at the Schriever airbase in Colorado.
This was the first such exercise at such a high level where space was given
such a central role. The exercise simulated a crisis situation between two
space powers in 2017 and methods for defusing it using space resources.
Participants in the exercise conceded that the two space powers the wargame had
in mind were the United States and China. As the American military sees it, it
is China that will be able to compete on an almost equal footing with the
United States in space at the end of the second decade of this century.
Meanwhile in China there is already talk of reusable
space ships, interplanetary stations for studying the Moon and Mars and a
landing of Chinese astronauts on the Moon. These are of course just projects
and plans that are a long way from becoming reality. But just the fact that
China is interested in such programs says a great deal. And while China does
not yet have the resources for such projects, they will surely be found for
military programs. Looking at the military conflicts of the past decade,
China’s leaders have become convinced of the importance of the space
capabilities of a country’s armed forces. Therefore it is clear that China will
continue to actively develop its space projects, especially in the military
sphere.[12]
EVERYDAY
BENEFITS FROM THE SPACE PROGRAM
|
View of Earth from Moon [6]
Sunrise viewed from
Columbia
View of Earth from Columbia
Luner Rover [6]
International Space Station [6]
Mars with polar ice cap [6]
Manned Manuervering Unit [6]
Setting foot on the Moon [6]
|
An
Opposing View from Fox News Channel
Many of you are familiar with the highly-biased commentary of Fox
News. In researching for this article we found the following commentary
on NASA's space program. At first, we were surprised and outraged.
But, considering the source, it no longer surprises us. Fox is known for
its highly-conservative, pro-religious, liberal-slamming, uneducated opinions.
"Many... make
grandiose claims about the many benefits showered upon our nation because we
sent a few people to the moon, or into orbit. ... Many of these claims are
hyperbolic. Most of them are false. ... Unfortunately, proponents have to
rely on such overhyped claims because the actual benefits of our manned space
program have been relatively sparse. ... Certainly there is some spinoff
technology benefit from the program--it's impossible to engage in any high-tech
endeavor without occasionally coming up with serendipitous results. And of
course, there's occasionally some cross fertilization with military space
activities (though from a taxpayer standpoint, disappointly little). ...
Proponents need to come up with real goals, and real reasons, that can resonate
with the American people--something difficult to do with the program as
currently planned, in which we spend billions for a Motel 6 in space that can
support only half a dozen people, even if current plans come to fruition."
[8]
Who
will lead the world into space?
If the United States does not lead the world into space because of the
great retreat from science and exploration by our people and our leaders; then
who will do it? A bigger question to pose at this point in history is will the
whole planet become as China was in the 13th century? Two countries stand out
in their urge to explore space. Both of these nations feel their destiny is
with the stars. The Russians and the Japanese are destined to lead the world
into space.
The Russian Republic has gone through an unbelievably serious change of
government and a way of life in the past five years. Yet through the strife and
hardship one factor has remained constant, the Russian Space Program. The Mir
has been operational since February 20, 1986 and has constantly been occupied
by Soviet/Russian Cosmonauts. Even though some of the results from this
occupation of space has been mocked by some Western Scientists as "not
real science" the fact remains that the Russians continued in space
through conditions which would have caused many countries to disregard such
"fluff" as space exploration and accomplish bureaucratic activities.
Now the Russians have signed on as partners with the U.S. as the U.S. space
program is starting to unravel as drooling government officials hope to solve
an entire country's budget mess by taking away $14 billion per year.
What will happen if the U.S. opts out of the space station? The Russians
will continue their explorations with the Mir and may even put up a second Mir.
They will ask the other partners to join them such as the Japanese and possibly
the French and German part of ESA. The U.S. will be left to continue whatever
world-shaking activities they are accomplishing at the time.
The Japanese have always felt that their destiny is with the stars. They
have very methodically approached their space program as they have the rest of
high technology with great industry and the use of other country's
breakthroughs. Even though Japan is under extreme stress from their economic
problems they will emerge from this as a stronger country ready to continue
with space exploration. Their new launch vehicle is a prime example of Japanese
high technology and efforts. Their constant moving to improve old ideas such as
the U.S. Liquid Air Cooled Engine (LACE) from the early 1960s has demonstrated
that they will lead the world into the next technology revolution and into
further space exploration. (John F. Graham’s opinion from his book: [39]
As for me, China’s potential is very big and this super power can lead
the space because of their quantity and people’s factor which is largest in the
world. What about Russia? I agree with Mr. Graham about changes in our life –
government want to lead in all the world, in all branches: economic, social,
spiritual and certainly in space exploration. To this numbers I can carry USA.
This country gives much attention to space exploration and want to lead in this
sphere. I think that the outer space must be used in peaceful purposes, not for
wars and I wish to all this countries to explore the space more and more.
III. US-SOVIET COMPETITION IN SPACE
Background of the Space
Race
After World War II, the rocket foreshadowed
a new style of warfare in which nuclear bombs could be delivered quickly across
the world. War might begin--and end--suddenly, decisively, without warning. As the
Space Race began, the United States and the Soviet Union were building rockets
to use as long-range weapons. The United States initially favored bombers, but
the Soviets preferred missiles and thus took an early lead in rocket
technology. A rocket able to carry a bomb across the globe also could
be used to loft machines and men into orbit. The United States and the Soviet
Union engaged in a long competition to develop rockets for both warfare and the
exploration of space. On
October 4, 1957, taking the whole world by surprise, the Soviet Union launched
its Sputnik satellite into the starry heavens and the great Space Race was on.
In the decades that followed, the post-Sputnik boom pitted the U.S. and Soviet
space programs against each other in a race for headlines, hasty glories, and
real prizes. It was a marathon plagued by misinformation, suspicion, and rumor
.
The Space Race was an informal competition between the United States and the Soviet Union that lasted roughly from 1957
to 1975. It involved the parallel efforts by each of those countries to explore outer space with artificial
satellites, to send humans into space, and to
land people on the Moon.
Though its roots lie in early rocket technology and in the international tensions
following World War II,
the Space Race effectively began after the Soviet launch of Sputnik 1 on 4 October 1957.
The term originated as an analogy to the arms race. The Space Race became an
important part of the cultural, technological, and ideological rivalry between
the USSR and the United States during the Cold War. Space technology became a
particularly important arena in this conflict, both because of its potential
military applications and due to the morale-boosting psychological benefits. A space history sleuth has documented cooperative ties
between NASA and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the heated
U.S.-Russian space race in the late 1950s through the 1960s.[20] The CIA
and the American Civilian Space Program, 1958-1968, Dwayne Day, an independent
U.S. policy expert, spells out the interactions between two different
bureaucratic weapons in the American arsenal during the space race with the
Soviet Union. Day observes that NASA and the CIA had a close relationship in
the early formative years of the agency. After all, NASA played a key role in
advancing American propaganda. "As such it was simply another means of
countering the communist threat to American interests," he explains.[20] "In NASA's case, the agency was usually moving
as fast as it could to beat the Soviet Union to the Moon and did not have much
additional flexibility in its schedule. Better intelligence was not going to
allow NASA to move any faster," Day concludes.[20] With great fanfare, this 36-year Space Race
officially ended in 1993, and in its place the U.S.-Russian space alliance was
born. But beneath all the official rhetoric of a bold new era of space
exploration, the "marriage made in the heavens" has been fraught with
the same pitfalls of misunderstanding, suspicion, and high-level chicanery that
started with Sputnik--souvenirs of the misperceptions and delusions of the Cold
War that threaten to drag down the alliance and the space programs of several
other nations with it.[40]
Successes
During the early years of the Space Race, success was marked by
headline-making "firsts": the first satellite, first robotic
spacecraft to the Moon, first man in space, first woman in space, first
spacewalk. To the dismay of the United States, each of these early feats was
achieved by the Soviet Union. These events triggered a drive to catch up
with--and surpass--the Soviets.
[62]
The Soviet Union stunned the world with the launch of Sputnik
("satellite") on October 4, 1957. A shiny basketball-size sphere containing radio
transmitters, Sputnik announced the beginning of the Space Age. Coming just weeks
after the Soviets' successful test launch of the first intercontinental
ballistic missile, Sputnik signaled the U.S.S.R.'s capability in rocketry and
their potential to dominate space.
Only a month after its "October surprise," the Soviet Union
launched another satellite. Sputnik 2 was larger and carried a dog called
Laika. Sputnik 2 demonstrated a growing Soviet advantage in launching heavy
payloads and hinted that the Soviets might soon put a human in space. From 1958
through 1961, six more Earth-orbiting Sputniks
were successfully launched by the U.S.S.R., all much larger than the
first. These missions also improved reentry and recovery techniques for a human
flight.
[64] [63]
On October 4, 1959, exactly two years after the first Sputnik launch,
the Soviet Union sent the first spacecraft around the Moon. Luna 3 recorded
images of the Moon's far side and broadcast them to Earth. A month earlier,
after five unsuccessful attempts, the Soviet Luna 2 spacecraft had hit the
Moon.[17]
On April 12, 1961, Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin circled the Earth once in his
Vostok spacecraft and returned safely. Gagarin's flight took place a month
before American astronaut Alan Shepard's suborbital flight, and 10 months
before astronaut John Glenn became the first American to orbit the Earth. Once
more, Gagarin's flight suggested that the U.S.S.R. was well ahead in the Space
Race.
Although the
Soviet Union was achieving newsworthy firsts in space, very little was known in
the West about its space program. Detailed information about missions and the
identity of program managers and engineers were closely guarded state secrets.
The notebooks of Konstantin Feoktistov, an engineer and cosmonaut whose
importance was hidden for decades, contain rare, behind-the-scenes insights
into the early Soviet space program during 1958-1959.
[65]
The Vostok and Voskhod missions of 1961-1965 continued the series of
Soviet firsts in space. In six missions from 1961 through 1963, a Vostok
("East") spacecraft carried a cosmonaut into Earth orbit in successively
longer flights.
The Vostok spacecraft then was modified to hold two or three cosmonauts
and renamed Voskhod ("Sunrise"). Three cosmonauts orbited aboard
Voskhod 1 for a day in October 1964, five months before the first U.S. two-man
Gemini mission. In March 1965, Voskhod 2 achieved another space spectacular,
the first spacewalk, when cosmonaut Aleksei Leonov ventured outside his
orbiting spacecraft. On March 18,
1965, Aleksei Leonov became the first person to venture outside an orbiting
spacecraft. He was secured only by an umbilical cord attached to the
life-support systems of Voskhod 2. Leonov spent 20 minutes outside in the
vacuum of space.
Early
U.S. manned spaceflights were spectacular successes:
May 1961--American astronaut Alan Shepard went briefly into space, but
not into orbit, on the Mercury 3 mission.
February 1962--John Glenn spent five hours in orbit on Mercury 6.
June 1965--Gemini IV astronaut Edward White made the first U.S.
spacewalk.
[66]
Although it seemed that the U.S. still lagged behind the U.S.S.R. in
space, in reality the United States was following a methodical step-by-step
program, in which each mission built upon and extended the previous ones. The
Mercury and Gemini missions carefully prepared the way for the Apollo lunar missions.
The one-man Mercury missions developed hardware for safe spaceflight and
return to Earth, and began to show how human beings would fare in space. From
1961 thro ugh 1963, the
United States flew many test flights and six manned Mercury missions.
After Mercury NASA introduced Gemini, an enlarged, redesigned spacecraft
for two astronauts. Ten manned Gemini missions were flown from 1964 through
1966 to improve techniques of spacecraft control, rendezvous and docking, and
extravehicular activity (spacewalking). One Gemini mission spent a
record-breaking two weeks in space, time enough for a future crew to go to the
Moon, explore, and return.
Russia's cosmonauts and America's astronauts became the most visible
symbols of the Space Race. These young space pilots were celebrated as national
heroes, and their flights were widely heralded around the world.
When the Space Race began, there was no rocket powerful enough to send a
man to the Moon and back. Both the Americans and the Soviets had to
develop a super-booster, or Moon rocket. The United States succeeded with the
mighty Saturn V. The Soviets' N-1 Moon rocket never made it into space. Both the United
States and the Soviet Union began their separate quests for a Moon rocket by
scaling up existing smaller rockets into gigantic multi-stage launch vehicles.
On July 21, 1969, as millions around the world watched on television,
two Americans stepped onto another world for the first time. The United States
successfully landed men on the Moon and returned them safely, fulfilling
President Kennedy's vision and meeting the goal that inspired manned
spaceflight during the 1960s.
The lunar landing was celebrated as an epic technological achievement
and a triumph of the human spirit. In the span of a lifetime, humans made a
giant leap from the Wright brothers' first powered flight on Earth to the first
steps on the Moon.
The pace of the race to the Moon quickened in late 1968 as both the
Soviets and the Americans strove to land there first.
1968
September Soviet Zond 5 unmanned test flight loops around Moon
and returns to Earth.
October
U.S. Apollo 7 manned test
flight of command and service modules in Earth orbit.
Unmanned Zond 6 circumlunar flight.
December
Soviet manned flight to
Moon canceled after October Zond problems.
Apollo 8 crew orbits Moon and returns safely.
1969
February
Soviet attempt to launch
N-1 Moonrocket fails.
March
Apollo 9 test of lunar
module in Earth orbit.
May
Apollo 10 test flight of
lunar module, descent from lunar orbit to low altitude above Moon.
July
Second Soviet N-1 launch
failure.
Launch of Luna 15 lander
for robotic collection and return of Moon rocks (crashed).
Apollo 11 crew succeeds in first landing on the Moon.
The end of the Moon Race
appeared imminent with the successful completion of the Apollo 8 and Apollo 10
missions.
In a suspenseful first foray, the crew of Apollo 8 looped around the
Moon in December 1968. They were the first people to see "Earthrise."
Five months later, the Apollo 10 crew went into lunar orbit and tested the
lunar module in a partial descent to the Moon.
These missions built confidence that the United States was ready to
proceed with the lunar landing. The big question was what the Soviets were
planning to do.
When it became evident that
the U.S.S.R. could not send a man to the Moon ahead of the Americans, the
Soviets attempted to obtain the first lunar rock and soil samples, sending a
robot instead of a cosmonaut.
Luna 15, an automated sample return craft, was launched to the Moon two
days before Apollo 11. It crash-landed there shortly after U.S. astronauts Neil
Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin first stepped onto the Moon. If the Luna 15 lander
had not crashed, it would have returned to Earth with lunar soil just hours
ahead of the Apollo 11 crew.
When the race to the Moon ended, the Soviet and American manned
spaceflight programs moved in other directions. In the United States, many
expected the Apollo missions to be the beginning of an era in which humans
would move out into space, to bases on the Moon and space stations in Earth
orbit, perhaps on to Mars. Others questioned whether costly manned spaceflight
should continue, now that the race was won.
For the Soviets, the competition with the United States did not end when
they began to pursue longer-term goals, such as establishing a permanent
presence in space with a series of Earth-orbiting space stations. They also
sent automated probes to explore the surfaces of Venus and Mars.
After a series of failures, the 13th Discoverer/Corona mission was
successful. A satellite was launched and a return capsule was retrieved from
orbit for the first time in August 1960. A week later, Discoverer-14 carried a
camera into orbit and returned a capsule containing the first U.S. photographs
of Soviet territory taken from space.
The Space Race grew out of the Cold War between the United States and
the Soviet Union, the most powerful nations after World War II. For a
half-century, the two superpowers competed for primacy in a global struggle
pitting a democratic society against totalitarian communism.
Space was a crucial arena for this rivalry. Before a watchful world,
each side sought to demonstrate its superiority through impressive feats in
rocketry and spaceflight. At the end of the Cold War, the United States and
Russia agreed to build a space station and pursue other joint ventures in
space.
Failures
in Space Competition
The United States
had been planning to launch its first scientific satellite in late 1957.
However, two launch attempts using the Navy's Vanguard rocket ended in
disaster.
Public response to the Vanguard failures prompted national
soul-searching in the United States. The media questioned why "Ivan"
could accomplish things that "Johnny" could not.
[69]
Spaceflight is risky. The exploration of space has not been accomplished
without loss of life.
In January 1967, during training for the first Apollo mission,
astronauts Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Edward White, and Roger Chaffee died
when a flash fire erupted in their spacecraft on the launch pad. U.S. manned
flights were halted for almost two years while the Apollo spacecraft was
redesigned.
In April 1967 the flight of Soyuz 1 ended in tragedy when the capsule's
descent parachute failed to open. Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov died in the crash
landing, and the next manned Soyuz flight was delayed for 18 months.
Begun under Korolëv and tested under Mishin, the N-1 rocket suffered
from critical technical problems that doomed Soviet efforts to land a man on
the Moon by 1970. All four unmanned flight tests of the N-1 ended in failure.
The N-1 effort was canceled in 1974, and the Soviet manned lunar program passed
into oblivion. [13]
The
year 1999 was predicted to continue the explosive growth in commercial space
transportation ignited by the emergence of wireless satellite networks and the
growing demand for communication bandwidth. The world’s space launch providers conducted
74 commercial, military and scientific launches during 1999. There were seven
failures. Those failures would include the major U.S. rocket families Delta and
Titan.[22] On April 9, a Lockheed Martin Titan 4-B
blasted off from Cape Canaveral carrying a military missile warning satellite.
The launch was a crucial return-to-flight for the military’s biggest rocket,
which had exploded in August 1998 on its last launch attempt. At first, all
seemed to go well with the rocket. But hours after liftoff, the Air Force
reported that the satellite was in the wrong orbit. Something had gone wrong
with the rocket’s final stage. The mission was a complete failure; the
satellite a total loss.
Disaster
struck again on April 27. This time a Lockheed-built Athena rocket sped aloft
from the military spaceport at Vandenberg, California. The
payload was a high-resolution commercial reconnaissance satellite for industry.
But minutes into the flight, the covering atop the satellite malfunctioned and
failed to drop away. The added weight sent the rocket and satellite crashing
back to Earth.[35]
The Soviet program suffered various incidents and set-backs.
The Soviet space program was tied to the central planning of the USSR's
five year plans. This made it difficult for the Chief Designers to respond in
1961 to the US launching a crash program for a manned lunar landing as the next
five year plan would not start until 1964. Centralised planning and the
concentration on production targets also made it difficult for middle
management and engineers to highlight defects in equipment leading to poor
quality control.
The Soviet space program produced the first cosmonaut fatality on March
23, 1961 when Valentin Bondarenko died in a fire within a low pressure, high
oxygen atmosphere.
The Voskhod program was cancelled after two manned flights due to the
change of Soviet leadership and the near fatality of the second mission. Had
the planned further flights gone ahead they could have given the Soviet space
program further 'firsts' including a long duration flight of 20 days, a
spacewalk by a woman and an untethered spacewalk.
The deaths of Korolyov (heart attack), Komarov (in the Soyuz 1 crash)
and Gagarin (on routine fighter jet mission) within two years of each other
understandably made some negative impact on the Soviet program.
The Soviets continued striving for the first lunar mission with the huge
N-1 rocket which exploded on each of four unmanned tests. The Americans won the
race to land on the moon with Apollo 11 in July, 1969.
On April 5, 1975, the second stage of a Soyuz rocket carrying 2
cosmonauts to the Salyut 4 space station malfunctioned, resulting in the first
manned launch abort. The cosmonauts were carried several thousand miles
downrange and became worried that they would land in China, which the Soviet
Union was then having difficult relations with. The capsule hit a mountain,
sliding down a slope and almost slid off a cliff; fortunately the parachute
lines snagged on trees and kept this from happening. As it was, the two
suffered severe injuries and the commander, Lazerev, never flew again.
On March 18, 1980 a Vostok rocket exploded on its launch pad during a
fueling operation killing 48 people.
In September 1983, a Soyuz rocket being launched to carry cosmonauts to
the Salyut 7 space station exploded on the pad, causing the Soyuz capsule's
abort system to engage, saving the two cosmonauts on board.
The Soviet space program produced the Space Shuttle Buran based on the
Energia launcher. Energia would be used as the base for a manned Mars mission.
Buran was intended to operate in support of large space based military
platforms as a response first to the US Space Shuttle and then the Strategic
Defense Initiative. By the time the system was operational, in 1988, strategic
arms reduction treaties and the end of the Cold War made Buran redundant.
Several vehicles were built, but only one flew an unmanned test flight; it was
found too expensive to operate as a civilian launcher.[35]
The history of space exploration has
been marred by a number of tragedies that resulted in the deaths of the
astronauts or ground crew. As of 2007, in-flight accidents had killed 18
astronauts, training accidents had claimed 11 astronauts, and launchpad
accidents had killed at least 70 ground personnel.
About two percent of the manned
launch/reentry attempts have killed their crew, with Soyuz and the Shuttle
having almost the same death rates. Except for the X-15 (which is a suborbital
rocket plane), other launchers have not launched sufficiently often for
reasonable safety comparisons to be made. For example, it seems likely that
Apollo would have eventually had a similar fatality rate if the program had
continued to the present day.
About five percent of the people that
have been launched have died doing so (because astronauts often launch more
than once). As of November 2004, 439 individuals have flown on spaceflights:
Russia/Soviet Union (96), USA (277), others (66). Twenty-two have died while in
a spacecraft: three on Apollo 1, one on Soyuz 1, one on X-15-3, three on Soyuz
11, seven on Challenger, and seven on Columbia. By space program, 18 NASA
astronauts (4.1%) and four Russian cosmonauts (0.9% of all the people launched)
died while in a spacecraft.[36]
If Apollo 1 and X-15-3 are included as
spaceflights, five percent or 22 of 439 have died on spaceflights. This
includes Roger Chaffee (who never flew in space) and Michael J. Adams (who
reached space by the U.S. definition but not the international definition, see
below) in the spaceflight total and Grissom, White, Chaffee (the crew of Apollo
1) and Adams in the killed total.
If Apollo 1 and the X-15-3 are excluded;
four percent or 18 of 437 have died while on a spaceflight. This excludes Gus
Grissom, Ed White, Roger Chaffee, and Michael J. Adams from the killed total
and Chaffee and Adams from the spaceflight total.
The Soyuz system is often considered to
be more reliable than the Shuttle, because 14 have been killed in shuttle
accidents (versus four killed in Soyuz accidents, however, there have only been
two shuttle flight fatalities, and the number is higher because of the shuttle's
greater people capacity). However, the overall safety appears to be similar. No
deaths have occurred on Soyuzs since 1971, and none with the current design of
the Soyuz. Including the early Soyuz design, the average deaths per launched
crew member on Soyuz are currently under two percent. However, there have also
been several serious injuries, and some other incidents in which crews nearly
died.[36]
NASA astronauts who have lost their
lives in the line of duty are memorialized at the Astronaut Memorial at the
Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in Merritt Island, Florida. Cosmonauts who
have died in the line of duty under the auspices of the Soviet Union were
generally honored by burial at the Kremlin Wall Necropolis in Moscow. It is
unknown whether this remains tradition for Russia, since the Kremlin Wall
Necropolis was largely a Communist honor and no cosmonauts have died in action
since the Soviet Union fell.
Other
countries
While
the U.S. and U.S.S.R./Russia have made the largest contributions to the space
surveillance
capabilities to date, other actors are increasing their capabilities. China has
a
tracking,
telemetry and communications system, including large phased array radars, to
monitor
its
national satellites and spacecraft, although it is not yet able to track
uncooperative space
objects.113
Japan has built two new facilities – an optical site and large phased array
radar – for
space
surveillance, primarily for asteroid detection as well as monitoring of debris
and
satellites.[5]
Canada
has experimented with a satellite tracking system, and is currently engaged in
research
and development of space-based surveillance technology, including a
micro-satellite based option. Debris monitoring is a mission of the European
Space Agency, which operates an
optical
facility in the Canary Islands and accesses the powerful FGAN Tracking and
Imaging
Radar
in Darmstadt, Germany.116 France is pursuing debris monitoring in GEO through two
new projects, incorporating advanced optical telescope technology.117 The U.S.
ballistic missile
defence
system has also supported new space surveillance initiatives, including
upgrades to aging early warning facilities and space-based surveillance
projects. [63]
China has been developing space technology purely for peaceful purposes
and will never participate in any arms race in outer space, FM spokeswoman
Zhang Qiyue said on Thursday. [42]
International
cooperation in space
The number of countries involved in space exploration has grown from a
small, select group beginning in the 1950s to more than 80 nations that today
have organized efforts to use space exploration to benefit their societies.
During a brief thaw in the
Cold War, three U.S. astronauts and two Soviet cosmonauts shook hands in low
earth orbit. The Apollo Soyuz test project marked the first time citizens of
two countries met in space. It seems kind of quaint in retrospect, given the
massive multinational space station project that is currently underway joining
the U.S., Russia and 14 other nations on the high frontier.
the surviving members of the Apollo-Soyuz Test
Project gather at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington July 14th to
mark the 30th anniversary of the mission. (credit: J. Foust)
[49]
[49]
The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) was the first human spaceflight
mission managed jointly by two nations. It was designed to test the
compatibility of rendezvous and docking systems for American and Soviet
spacecraft in order to open the way for future joint human flights. There were a
number of difficulties that both nations had to resolve in the mission design
before they could assure a safe docking of both spacecraft and an on-orbit
meeting of crewmembers. The technical challenges included different measuring
systems, the different spacecraft and thus mating adapter designs, and
different air pressures and mixtures. The mission began with the Soyuz
launch on July 15, 1975, followed by the Apollo launch seven hours later. The
docking in space of, the two spacecraft took place at 2:17 p.m. U.S. central
time on July 17. Two days worth of joint operations followed. After separation,
the Soyuz remained in space for almost two days before landing in the U.S.S.R.
on July 21. The Apollo spacecraft remained in space for another three days before
splashing down near Hawaii on July 24.[1] The mission was a
resounding success for both Americans and Soviets. They achieved their goal of
obtaining flight experience for rendezvous and docking of human spacecraft. In
addition, they also demonstrated in-flight intervehicular crew transfer, as
well as accomplished a series of scientific experiments. The ASTP mission was
not only successful as a space effort, but the mutual confidence and trust it
engendered made it a huge step in international cooperation during the Cold
War.
A good example of early space cooperation is the study of Halley’s comet
during its approach to the sun in 1986. Five years earlier, in 1981, the space
agencies of the Soviet Union, Japan, Europe, and the United States formed the
Inter-Agency Consultative Group (IACG) to informally coordinate matters related
to the space missions being planned to observe the comet. In 1986, five
spacecraft from these nations rendezvoused with Halley’s comet. The vital
information exchanged as a result of IACG collaboration was invaluable in
studying the comet.
In human
spaceflight, international collaboration has grown from the seeds of early
programs such as Skylab, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, and the Space Shuttle-Mir Joint Program,
to the current International Space Station effort, one of the most incredible
engineering accomplishments in history
The end of the cold war and the subsequent changes in the international
security environment have raised new possibilities for the utilization of space
technology to promote international peace, security and stability. In this new
political environment, the United Nations Organization has taken on new
functions, including preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and expanded
peace-keeping operations, in addition to its continuing role in promoting
economic and social development. Moreover, as indicated by the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development, held in 1992, the United Nations
started to play a more active role in ensuring the environmental security of
all countries. [16]
After decades of competition between the United States
and the Soviet Union, the new Russian Federation and the United States agreed
in 1994 to cooperate in the development and use of a large international space
station. The partnership also includes Japan, Canada, and the European Space
Agency. Under construction in the late 1990s for use in the 21st century, the
new space station focuses the expertise and resources of all partners to
achieve a permanent human presence in space. [18]
[70]
In 1993 and 1994 the heads of NASA and the Russian
Space Agency, with government approval, signed historic agreements on
cooperative ventures in space. The two agencies agreed to form a partnership to
develop an international space station and, in preparation for that project, to
engage in a series of joint missions aboard the U.S. Space Shuttle and the
Russian Mir space station.
The
first docking mission of the Space Shuttle and Mir occurred in 1995. Unlike the
one-time joint Apollo-Soyuz Test Project mission of 1975, the Shuttle-Mir
mission signaled an era of continuing cooperation between Americans and
Russians in space.
[71]
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
The
International Space Station is scheduled to be completed early in the 21st
century. It is the product of a partnership of 13 nations, led by the United
States, with major elements developed by European members, Canada, Japan, and
Russia. This space station is designed to provide more laboratory space, more
electrical power, larger crew accommodations, and greater international
cooperation than any previous space station.
[72]
Construction in orbit is carried out during a series
of Space Shuttle missions. When the space station is occupied by up to six
people, both the Shuttle and the Soyuz spacecraft can be used as ferries for
crews and supplies.
|
|
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
|
United States laboratory module European
Space Agency module |
|
Japanese experimental module Russian
service module |
|
Russian energy block Science
power platform |
|
Canadian Space Agency robot arm Soyuz
crew transfer vehicles |
|
Solar arrays Truss
|
|
Radiator Space Shuttle |
[19]
|
[75] [74] [73] |
The International Space Station is the largest
international science collaboration in space today. The United States, Japan,
Canada, Russia, and 11 countries represented by the European Space Agency have
come together to build and inhabit the station. Through the science performed
there, these nations seek to improve life on Earth and pave the way for future
space exploration. The space station partnership has illustrated its strength
and commitment with its perseverance through various strains, including
aftershocks from the loss of the U.S. space shuttle Columbia
in 2003. Such cooperative endeavors serve as inspiration for the future. When
great nations seek great endeavors, they find more success with allies and
partners. Space exploration is the great endeavor of our time. The future of
space exploration will be grounded in such international involvement and, more
importantly, in collaboration among nations to benefit people everywhere. World
citizens have reaped enormous benefits from space exploration through
satellites that support communication, navigation, weather observation, and other
remote-sensing disciplines. Space-related technologies and scientific knowledge
have contributed to high-performance computing and robotics, scratch-resistant
eyeglass lenses, breast cancer imaging, and much more. For the near future, even more ambitious
space exploration plans are in development. With completion of the New Horizons
mission, the first spacecraft to visit the dwarf planet Pluto and its moon
Charon in 2016-2017, the world’s spacefaring nations will have sent robotic
spacecraft to all the planets of our solar system. No later than 2020, we
expect humans to once again walk on the moon. [44]
As the magnitude of space exploration increases, so
does international, collaborative effort.
IV.
Books: conflicts in space
V.
|
Title of the book |
Author |
Plot |
|
The Rebirth of the
Russian Space Program 50 Years After
Sputnik, New Frontiers |
Harvey, Brian |
‘Russia in Space
-The New Frontier’ looks at the Russian space programme in 2007, 50 years
after Sputnik. Brian Harvey
covers all the key elements of the current Russian space programme, from
manned to unmanned missions; the various types of unmanned applications
programmes; the military programme; the infrastructure of production, launch
centres and tracking; the commercialization of the programme and its
relationship with western companies; and the programme in a comparative
global context. Strong emphasis
is placed on Russia’s future space intentions and on new programmes and
missions in prospect, such as Soyuz in Kourou, Kliper, Phobos Grunt and the
Angara launcher. End matter
contains a list of all missions since January 1991 to December 2006. |
|
Moon shot : the
inside story of America's race to the moon |
Alan Shepard |
Shepard and the late
Slayton, two of the original Mercury astronauts, here team up with two
veteran space reporters to produce a firsthand account of the space program's
early days. The narrative is at its best when it focuses on the astronauts'
flight experiences-Shepard's brief Mercury flight, his lunar landing mission
ten years later, and Slayton's long-delayed trip into space aboard the last
Apollo mission in 1975. On the down side, its use of re-created conversations
that pass as exposition weaken the narrative, making it sound more like a
screenplay prospectus than a space history. For example, it is doubtful that
John Glenn had to explain to his fellow astronauts what the Saturn launch
vehicle was. One comes away wishing for more insight into what it was like to
walk on the moon and less about the astronauts' pranks and peccadillos.
Still, with the book's publication timed to coincide with this July's 25th
anniversary of the first manned lunar landing, this title may see some
demand. |
|
First on the moon A
voyage with Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr |
Neil Armstrong |
Written with Gene
Farmer and Dora Jane Hamblin. Epilogue by Arthur C. Clarke. 511 pages,
plates, cloth, dj, book club edition, very good. From the dj: 'The exclusive
story of Apollo 11 and the always thrilling and historic personal experiences
of the three astronauts who put man on the moon. It is a voyage in every
sense of the world - through time, from President Kennedy's fateful
pronouncement on May 25, 1961, that the United States would put man on the
moon before the decade was out, and through space, with Mercury, Gemini, and
Apollo. ~ Life senior editor Gene Farmer and Life staff writer Dora Jane
Hamblin have spent many months with - indeed, living with - the astronauts
and their families. Not only is the flight excitingly and thoroughly
documented, with the astronauts' own thoughts and words woven through the
recorded transcript with Houston, but the atmosphere in the astronauts' homes
during the flight is faithfully recorded. Good Hard Cover Very Good |
|
Of Ice And Steel: A
Cataclysmic International Conflict Across Space And Time |
D. Clayton Meadows |
Don Meadows novel is
a breath of fresh air in the realm of novels involving submarines. Harking
back to the days when novels about the Silent Service were actually written
by REAL sub sailors who actually rode the boats in both war and peace time.
Men like Edward L. Beach not pretenders who make up stuff like Tom Clancey a
wannabe submariner who thinks he knows it all after having a tiger cruise. Chief Meadows
actually served on the boats and brings this to the table. Things mentioned
in the book are how things work on both US and Russian boats. And yes the
weapons used by the protagonist were real and are the grandparents of todays
weapons. The novel orbits
around some projects the Nazi's were actually investigating such as an Artic
base of operations. To this day what happened to some German U-boats and some
end of the war missions remain unsolved mysteries. There are some detail nuts
who will take Mr. Meadows to task but as this is a work of fiction for sake
of the story some details are knowingly changed for the stories sake as far
as the U-boat is concerned. If anyone doubts Mr. Meadows expertise and
resources used they should check out www.subpirates.com and the many articles
there from many people in the know. This site is THE site for details on not
only R/C submarines but REAL submarines as the majority of people there are
either active Submariners or Ex submariners from around the world. The novel itself
while 543 pages long is a very smooth fast read and while some areas may seem
to be liberties taken for charecter development they are in fact an insight
into the submariners mindset. I should know I rode a Boomer (SSBN) myself. |
|
STAR WARS® LEGACY OF
THE FORCE: EXILE |
Aaron Allston |
Evil is on the move
as the Galactic Alliance and Jedi order battle forces seen and unseen, from
rampant internal treachery to the nightmare of all-out war. With each victory
against the Corellian rebels, Jacen Solo becomes more admired, more powerful,
and more certain of achieving galactic peace. But that peace may come with a
price. Despite strained relationships caused by opposing sympathies in the
war, Han and Leia Solo and Luke and Mara Skywalker remain united by one
frightening suspicion: someone insidious is manipulating this war, and if he
or she isn't stopped, all efforts at reconciliation may be for naught. And as
sinister visions lead Luke to believe that the source of the evil is none
other than Lumiya, Dark Lady of the Sith, the greatest peril revolves around
Jacen himself. |
|
Star Wars®:
Allegiance |
Timothy Zahn |
Author Timothy Zahn
returns to the Star Wars galaxy next year with his next book, Star Wars:
Allegiance. Here's a first look at its cover, by artist John Van Fleet. In Star Wars: Allegiance,
which takes place during the time between Episodes IV and V, Luke Skywalker
is still new to all this Jedi business. Han Solo isn't sure how much he's
willing to commit to the Rebel Alliance. Princess Leia is trying to help run
the Rebellion and wondering why Han is so infuriating. The young Mara Jade is
one of the most valued agents of the evil Emperor. And a team of
stormtroopers goes rogue, deciding to mete out justice their own way... |
|
Star Wars® Darth
Bane: Path of Destruction |
Drew Karpyshyn |
The Sith were in
shambles. In-fighting among their ranks allowed the Jedi to thwart their dark
plans. One last battle to end an era resulted in the extinction of the Sith.
Or so it was believed -- one Dark Lord survived. From the ashes
emerged Darth Bane, the lone Sith who was able to foresee the inevitable doom
of the misguided order, and learn from this costly lesson. He forged a new
order of secretive Sith, plotting from the shadows, carefully rebuilding
power a generation at a time for centuries until the revenge of the Sith
could finally be achieved. Who was this Dark
Lord? What events forged the man who would split from the Sith ranks and
entirely redefine the order? |
|
Space Wars |
Paul Anderson,
Charles G. Waugh |
Man's violence has
erupted again and again, and there is no end in sight. History has shown the
predominance of war--and in the future . . . Space Wars. Features the talents
of Arthur C. Clarke, Gordon R. Dickson, Joe Haldeman and more. Original. |
|
Space Wars |
Steve Ditko |
This collection of
artist Steve Ditko's finest comics includes a wealth of sci-fi work done
prior to his world-shaking creation with Stan Lee, Spider-Man. Ditko's
eclectic, sometimes surrealistic art proves both futuristic and retro as he
takes readers into the cosmos to find star-crossed lovers in the backstabbing
debacle, "Dead Reckoning." Then, the deadliest space ship in the
galaxy hovers menacingly over readers while invaders demand complete
surrender in "The Conquered Earth!" These, plus "The Creature
from Corpus III" and "The Juggernauts of Jupiter," are just a
sampling of the pulse-pounding tales featured in this book. |
|
Space Wars |
William Scott,
Michael Coumatos, William Birnes |
Michael Coumatos is
a former U.S. Navy test pilot, ship’s captain and commodore, U.S. Space Command
director of war gaming, and a National Security Council counterterrorism
advisor. William Scott is the
Rocky Mountain bureau chief for Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine
and a former U.S. Air Force flight-test engineer, who served with the National
Security Agency and as aircrew on nuclear-sampling missions. With the help of
New York Times bestselling author William J. Birnes, these renowned experts
have joined forces to grippingly depict how the first hours of World War III
might play out in the year 2010. Coumatos, Scott, and
Birnes take the reader inside U.S. Strategic Command, where top military
commanders, space-company executives, and U.S. intelligence experts are
conducting a DEADSATS II wargame, exploring how the loss of critical satellites
could lead to nuclear war. The players don’t know that the war they are
gaming has already begun, miles
above them in the lifeless, silent cold of space. Jam-packed with the actual
systems and secret technologies the United States has or will soon field to
protect its space assets, Space Wars describes a near-future nuclear
nightmare that terrorists will relish but politicians prefer to ignore. In a
quieter, more peaceful time, Space Wars would be an exciting work of fiction.
But with the United States now at war, Space Wars is all too real. |
|
Space Weapons, Earth
Wars |
Robert Preston ,
Jennifer Gross, Michael Miller, Calvin Shipbaugh |
Space weapons have
been debated intensely in the past. The latest instance of prominent debate
is over their use for ballistic missile defense. But this is not the only
possible role for space weapons, and that fact raises a further concern: What
if an adversary were to develop such weapons? Could one? Why would it? It is
time for broader public discussion of the issues. Before deciding to acquire
or forgo space weapons for terrestrial conflict, the United States should
fully discuss what such weapons can do, what they will cost, and the likely
consequences of acquiring them. The authors of this report seek to aid this discussion
not by arguing for or against space weapons but by describing their
attributes, classifying and comparing them, and explaining how each might be
used. The authors also explore how a nation might decide to acquire such
weapons and how other nations might react. |
V. Treaties and agreements
Agreements
and Treaties that governments use in Space
International
institutions play an essential role in space security, providing a
venue to develop new international law, discuss issues of collective concern,
and mediate potential disagreements over
the allocation of scarce space resources in a
peaceful manner. National space policies and doctrines
both reflect and inform space actors’ use of space, as well as
their broad civil, commercial, and military priorities. As
such, the relationship of policies and doctrines to space security
varies, depending whether or not a specific
policy or doctrine promotes the secure and
sustainable
use of space by all space actors. Some space actors maintain explicit
policies on international cooperation in space with the potential to
enhance transparency and exert a related
positive influence upon space security considerations. Such
international cooperation frequently supports the diffusion
of capabilities to access and use space, increasing the number of space
actors
with space assets and thus an interest in maintaining peaceful and
equitable use of space.
National
space policies and military doctrines may have adverse effects on space
security if they promote policies and practices designed to constrain
the secure use of space by other actors or
advocate space-based weapons. Policies and doctrines that remain
ambiguous on these counts may nonetheless have a negative
impact on space security if they are misperceived by peer competitors
as threatening, and stimulate the development of policies, doctrines,
and capabilities to counterbalance these
assumed threats. Furthermore, military doctrines that rely
heavily on space can have mixed impacts on space security
by both underscoring the need for the secure and sustainable use of
space, and pushing states to develop protection
and negation capabilities to protect valuable space systems.
Main multilateral
agreements
Non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament
aspects of outer space have evolved, in part, through the development of
treaties negotiated by the United Nation's Committee on the Peaceful Uses
of Outer Space (COPUOS). These agreements
include:
· The
1967 Outer Space Treaty (formally titled as the
Treaty on the
Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of
Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.)
1..The key principles of
the Outer Space Treaty are found in Articles I and II. Article I
declares that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is
"the province of all mankind" and "shall be free for the
exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a
basis of equality and in accordance with international law."
2.Pursuant to Article
II, outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not
"subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of
use or occupation, or by any other means."
3..Article III specifies
that the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other
celestial bodies is to be carried out «in accordance with international law,
including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining
international peace and security." The Outer Space Treaty,
however, only explicitly forbids the orbiting of nuclear weapons or other
weapons of mass destruction about the Earth, their installation on celestial
bodies or the stationing of such weapons in outer space in any other manner. [28]
The 1968 Rescue
Agreement (formally entitled the Agreement on the Rescue of
Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into
Outer Space). Seen largely as a confidence building measure
during the Cold War, the Rescue Agreement requires nations to render all
necessary assistance to astronauts or cosmonauts in distress and to return them
and their spacecraft promptly to the launching authority should they land
within the jurisdiction of another State Party.[23]
· The
1972 Liability Convention (formally entitled as the Convention on
International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects).
Created to ensure prompt and equitable compensation for victims of damage
caused by space objects, the Liability Convention reinforces the view
that states are legally responsible for their activities in outer space. This obligation was made multilateral
in the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, which has 30 NATO and East
European participants and is of unlimited duration. Presumably, Russia, France,
the European Union as such, or any other state party to the CFE Treaty could
also take legal action against moves toward space weaponization, basing its
complaint on treaty provisions prohibiting interference with national technical
means of verification. Legal action could also be taken in US courts by foreign
or US commercial users of space satellites if these satellites were endangered
or destroyed by US space weapons. [9].
· The
1975 Registration Convention (formally entitled the Convention on the
Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space
establishes a mandatory and uniform registration system for objects launched
into outer space. The Registration Convention requires mandatory
reporting to the United Nations Secretary-General of information such as the
date and location of the launch, basic orbital parameters after launch and the
recovery date of the spacecraft. [26]
This central
registry’s purported benefits are, in theory, effective management of space
traffic, enforcement of safety standards, and attribution of liability for
damage. Furthermore, the Convention acts as a space security
confidence-building measure (CBM) by promoting transparency
· The
1979 Moon Agreement (formally entitled the Agreement Governing the Activities of States
on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies).
The Moon Agreement reiterates the Outer Space Treaty's
obligation that the Moon be used «exclusively for peaceful purposes" and
prohibits the «threat or use of force or any other hostile act or threat of
hostile act on the Moon." It is likewise prohibited to use the Moon in
order to commit any such act or to engage in any such threat in relation to the
Earth, the Moon, spacecraft, and the personnel of spacecraft or artificial
space objects.
The Moon
Agreement also requires that the States Parties " not place in orbit
around or other trajectory to or around the Moon objects carrying nuclear
weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction or place or use such
weapons on or in the Moon." [27]. This Agreement generally echoes the
space security language and spirit of the OST in terms of the prohibitions on
aggressive
behavior
on and around the Moon, including the installation of weapons and
military
bases, as well as other non-peaceful activities. The
Moon Agreement
is
not widely ratified and lacks support from major space powers. Objections
to
its provisions regarding an international regime to govern the exploitation
of
the Moon’s natural resources, differences over the interpretation of the
Moon’s
natural resources as the “common heritage of mankind,” and the right
to
inspect all space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations, and installations
belonging
to any other party appear to have kept most states from ratifying this
Agreement.
[25]
Signature and ratification of
major space treaties
|
Treaty
Date
Ratifications Signatures |
|
|
|
Outer Space Treaty
1967
98
27 |
|
|
|
Rescue Agreement
1968
88
25 |
|
|
|
Liability Convention
1972
82
25 |
|
|
|
Registration Convention
1975
44
4 |
|
|
|
Moon Agreement
1979
10
5 |
|
|
[3]
Bilateral agreements between the United States and
Russia.
During the Cold
War and shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States and
Russia concluded several bilateral agreements with space arms control
components, namely:
the Anti-Ballistic
Missile (ABM) Treaty (1972), prohibits the development of
nation-wide defenses against long-range missiles. Bans the development,
testing, or deployment of space-based missile defense components.
the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) I Interim
Agreement (1972), allows the use of satellites
(national technical means of verification) for treaty verification and forbids
interference with these satellites.
the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (1987), forbids
interference with satellite treaty verification measures.
the Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START) I (1991). Forbids
interference with satellite treaty verification measures.
Under the second
Bush Administration, the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, opening up the
possibility of U.S. development, testing, and deployment of space-based ABM
systems. [4]
UN Resolutions
More than 130 States have interests at stake either as space-faring
nations or indirectly benefiting from the use of commercial satellites. There
is an international consensus on the general principle of ‘the importance and
urgency of preventing an arms race in outer space’, as shown by the regular
adoption by the UN General Assembly, without any negative vote, of a number of
resolutions since 1990. The resolution asks all states to refrain from actions
contrary to the peaceful use of outer space and calls for negotiation in the
Conference on Disarmament on a multilateral agreement to prevent an arms race
in outer space. Most of these resolutions have been unanimous and without
opposition, although the United States and a few other governments have abstained.
- Following up on the original
Outer Space Treaty, in 1981 the UN General Assembly two
related resolutions: one put forward by the USSR {A/RES/36/99} calling for
the Committee on Disarmament to begin negotiations on a “treaty to
prohibit the stationing of weapons of any kind in outer space”; the other
drafted by several Western countries {A/RES/36/97C} asking the CD to
“consider the question of negotiating effective and verifiable agreements
aimed at preventing an arms race in outer space” and making anti-satellite
weapons a priority. [10]
- In 1996 the UN
General Assembly adopted a Declaration on International Cooperation in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Use and Benefit and in the
Interest of All States (Res. 51/122). An annex to the Declaration stated
that “international cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space
for peaceful purposes ... shall be conducted in accordance with the
provisions of international law, including the Charter of the United
Nations and the Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of
States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and
Other Celestial Bodies. It shall be carried out for the benefit and in the
interests of all States, irrespective of their degree of economic, social
or scientific and technological development, and shall be the province of
all mankind. Particular account should be taken of the needs of developing
countries.”
- On 29 November 2001
an item entitled “Prevention of an arms race in outer space” was included
in the provisional agenda for the fifty-seventh session of the General
Assembly in accordance with Assembly Res. 56/23.
- At the first
meeting of the fifty-seventh session, on 27th September 2002, the First
Committee decided to hold a general debate on all disarmament and
international security items included in the provisional agenda. Regarding
Outer Space, the First Committee had before it a letter dated 18 September
2002 from the Permanent Representatives of China and the Russian
Federation to the UN Secretary General (A/57/418). In addition on 15
October, the representative of Egypt, on behalf of various nations,
introduced a resolution entitled “Prevention of an arms race in outer
space” (A/C.1/57/L.30). At its 18th meeting, on 22 October, the Committee
adopted this resolution by a recorded vote of 151 to none, with 2
abstentions, the United States and Israel.[24]
- On 27 August 2004
China called for an international consensus and a legally-binding
agreement to prevent an arms race in outer space. China’s Ambassador for
Disarmament Affairs, Hu Xiaodi, told delegates to the United Nations
Conference on Disarmament that, “In our view, the priority concern is to
further consolidate an international consensus on prevention of
weaponization and an arms race in outer space in the form of a legal
commitment or a legal instrument.” Hu introduced two informal
papers—initiated jointly by China and Russia—outlining the two countries’
concerns over the lack of definition and verification of arms in outer
space and concluding that verification will be highly difficult in terms
of cost and technology—adding that a verification protocol may be needed
in the future.[60]
- The
conference on ‘Safeguarding Space Security: Prevention of an Arms Race in
Outer Space’ was held on 21-22 March 2005, and is
jointly hosted by the Governments of the People’s Republic of China and
the Russian Federation, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament
Research (UNIDIR), and the Simons Centre for Disarmament and
Non-Proliferation Research. The conference was financially supported by
the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Simons
Foundation. The discussions brought the issue of space security on to a new level of
political immediacy and urgency. The momentum of debates around the world
was considered an encouraging prospect. Notes of the following points:
- Space is for
everybody and havoc in space means havoc for everybody.
- Cooperation
is the key to dealing with space activities, not only because space is a
common heritage for all but also because of the significant costs incurred
in space exploration.
- The
gap in technological capabilities is increasing. The volume of investment
in technology R&D and involvement in space activities by commercial
investors is something we should remain attentive to as we all have an
interest at stake.
- Space debris havoc
would damage the interests of all and put human exploration of space to an
end. [61]
Efforts
to control and tame space weapons are coming earlier in the cycle and space
weaponization may emerge more slowly with a longer interval before the first
use of these devices as weapons than was the time between Trinity and
Hiroshima. Consequently, there may be more time to play out the recurrent
contest between human capacity to invent new weapons and the efforts of human
society to control them. Let us hope that this time is well used. Both the United
States and Russia are subject to all major international treaties and
agreements that require using space for peaceful purposes only. It is in the
interests of all humankind to ensure that the research and usage of outer
space, including the moon and other celestial objects, pursues peaceful goals
so that all may benefit.[52]
Arguments for and against one of the Outer Space
Treaty
[54]
In January, 1967 the Outer Space Treaty or, more formally, the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial
Bodies (18 U.S.T. 2410, T.I.A.S. No. 6347, 610
U.N.T.S. 205) -- the document widely regarded as the Magna Carta of space law
-- was opened for signature.
On January 27, 1967, in Washington, London, Moscow, the U.S. signed the Outer
Space Treaty.
For the record, the U.S. Senate ratified it April 25, 1967. President Johnson
ratified it May 24, 1967. And on October 10, 1967, the U.S. ratification was
deposited at Washington, London, and Moscow; that's the day, for better or
worse, the Outer Space Treaty entered into force.
It's not easy being an international treaty, and the OST certainly has its
share of critics. You can spot the Treaty's flaws, shortcomings and unanswered
questions from orbit. Legal scholars and others have lined up for decades to
propose amending, redrafting, withdrawing from or abandoning the oft-times
beleaguered Treaty.
But for now, as Prof. Reynolds points out, "Among all of the treaties
relating to activity in outer space, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 enjoys the
broadest subscription and the highest regard. Although some of the regard for
the Treaty may stem as much from sentiment as from any concrete benefit it
provides--the Outer Space Treaty having been a triumph of consensus and
forward-looking thought at a time when cold war tensions and narrow nationalism
were the norm--the Outer Space treaty does accomplish a great deal."
The UN Office for Outer Space Affairs reports that (as of
1/1/06) 98 States have ratified and an additional 27 have signed the Outer
Space Treaty; and summarizes the principles set forth in the treaty that
"provides the basic framework on international space law" as follows:
·
the exploration and use of outer space
shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and
shall be the province of all mankind;
·
outer space shall be free for
exploration and use by all States;
·
outer space is not subject to national
appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any
other means;
·
States shall not place nuclear weapons
or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station
them in outer space in any other manner;
·
the Moon and other celestial bodies
shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
·
astronauts shall be regarded as the
envoys of mankind;
·
States shall be responsible for national
space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental
activities;
· States shall
be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.
[54]
Just a bit of background:
The Outer Space Treaty was considered by the Legal
Subcommittee in 1966 and agreement was reached in the General Assembly in the
same year (resolution 2222 (XXI). The Treaty was largely based on the
Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, which had been adopted by the General
Assembly in its resolution 1962 (XVIII) in 1963, but added a few new
provisions. The Treaty was opened for signature by the three depository
Governments (the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States
of America) in January 1967, and it entered into force in October 1967.
[28]
December 2001, the General Assembly once again passed, by 156 votes to
zero opposed, a resolution calling for negotiation in the Geneva Conference on
Disarmament of a treaty to prevent an arms race in outer space. This time,
there were four abstentions to the resolution. The now customary trio of the
United States, Micronesia, and Israel was joined by a fourth state, Georgia.
The resolution asks all treaty parties to refrain from actions contrary to the
peaceful use of outer space and calls for negotiation in the Conference on
Disarmament on multilateral agreements to prevent an arms race in outer space.[45].
Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. armed forces
have become almost totally–and uniquely–dependent on a whole array of
satellite-based communications, intelligence gathering, and command and
control. At the same time, civilian use of satellites for communications,
weather forecasting, disaster relief and much else has grown by leaps and
bounds.
Given this global trend, the need for a treaty to
protect satellites against attack is obvious. In the Geneva-based Conference on
Disarmament (CD), efforts to launch negotiations banning weapons in space and
limiting ground-based threats go back to 1982 under an agenda item, "the
prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS)." Despite their recent
test, the Chinese have been amongst the most vociferous advocates of a PAROS
treaty, and have consistently refused to approve a CD work program that does
not include PAROS. Even the European Union last year declared PAROS "an
essential condition for strengthening strategic stability and for... the free
exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes by all states."[14]
Paradoxically, the world leader in satellite technology has opposed a
PAROS treaty, and has consistently refused multilateral solutions to the ASAT
problem. The U.S. opposes creating a working group even to discuss the issue of
banning weapons in space, abstaining on the annual vote in the UN General
Assembly. In 2005 the U.S. became the only nation to vote against the call for
a ban on weapons in space, relying instead on unilateral dominance. The U.S.
Space Command's statement of doctrine, "Vision 2020," speaks of a
"critical need to control the space medium," and establishing space
as a sole American "area of responsibility," asserting its well-known
vision of unilateral political order beyond the atmosphere.[43]
This is not an
idle boast. While the U.S. has experimented with ASAT weapons since the 1980s,
it is the only nation that has a fully deployed, ASAT-capable system: The
anti-ballistic missile hit-to-kill interceptors recently deployed in Alaska.
While poor at their designated task of finding incoming ICBM warheads, they
could more easily adapt to an ASAT mission.
The Chinese ASAT test was a wake-up call both for the United States and the
world. It brings into stark relief the now unavoidable choice between two
competing and incompatible visions of space security: A multilateral regime
that stabilizes the space environment through universal agreement, or one of
attempted unilateral domination that will inevitably lead to armed competition
in space and thus a threat both to military security and peaceful economic
growth.
For many years, Canada has supported a multilateral
approach to controlling space weapons. It has solidly contributed to one of the
most complex areas of any successful arms control treaty: The negotiation of a
verification regime. In 2004, the Department of Foreign Affairs published a
consultative working paper on a "space security index," with the aim
of establishing an agreed body of knowledge from which to commence
negotiations.
Canada needs to put this knowledge to use in creative
international political leadership with the aim of negotiating a space security
treaty. What better time to do this than on the 40th anniversary of the Outer Space
Treaty. Unfortunately, the Canadian government has done little since its 2004
initiative. Its stated multilateral goals are modest, eschewing space treaty
leadership with the admonition that "We are not likely to achieve [space
security] in one giant leap. Our aim is therefore to make progress through
small, practical and achievable steps which create the preconditions for space
actors to consider space weapons to be of marginal utility". More
worryingly, rumors persist that Canada may change its mind and join the U.S.
Ballistic Missile Defense program.[14]
Position
of Governments
For many years annual UN General Assembly resolutions calling for the
Conference on Disarmament to negotiate a treaty to Prevent an Arms Race in
Outer Space have passed by overwhelming positive votes (160-175 countries in
favor), with no negative votes, and 2–4 abstentions. The key, persistent
abstentions have been those of the USA and Israel. Officials in both these
countries have publicly expressed support for national programs to place
weapons in space. Virtually all other countries have opposed such programs, and
many of them have made statements to that effect at the UN, in Geneva, and in
other forums.
The individual country positions reported here are limited to five: official
representations from the USA and Israel, articulating national goals for placing
weapons in space; and statements by officials from China, the UK, and Russia,
which have played leading roles in calling for a treaty to ban such
deployments.
United Kingdom The British
government’s position is as follows:
The focus of the UK governments’ policy on space is on civil and scientific
uses, but the security benefits we derive from its military use are important.
Satellite communications, early warning, navigation and sensing are all
integral to our national security responsibilities. The cornerstone of
international space law is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, to which the UK is a
Depository. This treaty places significant constraints
on military activity in space: it bans the deployment of WMD in space and
military activity on the moon and other celestial bodies. The UK continues to
be a firm supporter. As national security activities in space have grown, so
have concerns by some states about the risk of an arms race in outer space.
Some states
would wish to see additional and more extensive arms control measures. We
recognize colleagues’ concerns and we support the annual resolution on the
Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) at the UN. However, there is
no international consensus on the need for further legal codification of the use
of space, which would be difficult both to agree and verify.
[63]
United States The United
States is actively pursuing efforts to place weapons in space and has described
the primary purposes of these efforts as follows:
• To improve the US’s situational awareness and view of the “battle space” in
space;
• To find, fix, track, target, engage, and assess other nations’ space
capabilities;
• To institute the appropriate protective and defensive measures, thus ensuring
that friendly forces can continuously conduct space operations across the
entire spectrum of conflict; and
• To establish operations that can deceive, disrupt, deny, degrade, or destroy
adversary space capabilities.[29]
Israel On 10 January 2005
Yuval Steinitz, chairman of Israel’s Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee,
called for the development and deployment of a space-based missile defense
system and commented on the need for an offensive space-based military
capability. Steinitz said that Israel must compensate for its lack of strategic
depth on land by expanding use of sea- and space-based weapons. Steinitz also
urged defense and industry officials to consider future developments of
anti-satellite missiles, satellite-attacking lasers and ship-based missiles
“that can strike the skies.” The Chairman also stated that “In Israel, our
strategic Achilles’ heel is our miniscule geographical size, this lack of
ground territory and our obligation to defend the homeland from attack drives
the need to develop a strategic envelope of air, sea and space forces not only
for defense, but for attack.” Referring to space-based weaponry programs in the
United States, Steinitz said Israel must not ignore trends and technologies
that can extend the battlefield beyond the atmosphere.[42]
China Hu Xiaodi, Ambassador
for Disarmament Affairs, gave China’s position at the 28 March 2002 Plenary of
the Conference on Disarmament, saying:
The last 50 years have witnessed the process of research, deployment and
reduction of nuclear weapons. History tells us how tedious a task it has been
to achieve nuclear disarmament when these weapons were already developed and
deployed. To avoid following the same disastrous path, we are duty-bound to
take preventive measures immediately for the prevention of the weaponization of
outer space—to nip the danger in the bud, so to speak—so that we would not have
to be confronted with the same complex and thorny issues such as “outer space
weapon disarmament” and “the non-proliferation of outer space weapons” in the
future. China has also called on the CD to reestablish the Ad Hoc Committee on
PAROS and start to negotiation towards one or more legal instruments on the
prohibition of weapons in outer space. [46]
Russia put forward a proposal
for a moratorium on the deployment of weapons in outer space and the
prohibition of the weaponization of outer space at the UN General Assembly in
2004.
In a speech to the General Assembly on 26 September 2001 Russian Foreign
Minister Igor Ivanov said that Russia invites the world community to start
working out a comprehensive agreement on the non-deployment of weapons in outer
space and on the non-use or threat of force against space objects. In
particular, the agreement could contain the following elements:
• outer space should be used in the interests of maintaining peace and
security;
• an obligation not to place in the orbit around the Earth any objects carrying
any kinds of weapons, not to install such weapons on celestial bodies or
station such weapons in outer space in any other manner;
• an obligation not to use or threaten to use force against space objects;
• a provision establishing a verification mechanism for the implementation of
the agreement on the basis of confidence-building and transparency.
As the first practical step in this direction, a moratorium could be declared
on the deployment of weapons in outer space pending a formal agreement. Russia
would be willing to make such a commitment immediately, provided that the other
leading space powers join this moratorium. [49] [10]
VI. Non-treaty approaches to space
security
National
Missile Defense
The objective of the National Missile Defense (NMD) program is to
develop and maintain the option to deploy a cost effective, operationally
effective, and Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty compliant system that will
protect the United States against limited ballistic missile threats, including
accidental or unauthorized launches or Third World threats.
The primary
mission of National Missile Defense is defense of the United States (all 50 states)
against a threat of a limited strategic ballistic missile attack from a rogue
nation. Such a system would also provide some capability against a small
accidental or unauthorized launch of strategic ballistic missiles from more
nuclear capable states. The means to accomplish the NMD mission are as follows:
- Field an NMD system that meets
the ballistic missile threat at the time of a deployment decision.
- Detect the launch of enemy
ballistic missile(s) and track.
- Continue tracking of ballistic
missile(s) using ground based radars.
- Engage and destroy the
ballistic missile warhead above the earth’s atmosphere by force of impact.
The National
Missile Defense Program was originally a technology development effort. In
1996, at the direction of the Secretary of Defense, NMD was designated a Major
Defense Acquisition Program and transitioned to an acquisition effort.
Concurrently, BMDO was tasked with developing a deployable system within three
years. This three-year development period culminated in 2000, and the
Department of Defense began a Deployment Readiness Review in June 2000. Using
that review, President Clinton was to make a deployment decision based on four
criteria: the potential ICBM threat to the United States; the technical
readiness of the NMD system; the projected cost of the NMD system; and
potential environmental impact of the NMD system. Rather than make a decision,
President Clinton deferred the deployment decision to his successor. The White
House in choosing this action cited several factos. Among them were the lack of
test under realistic conditions, the absence of testing of the booster rocket,
and lingering questions over the system's ability to deal with countermeasures.
The deployment decision now rests with President George W. Bush, who is
reexamining the Clinton NMD system along with a variety of other proposals. In
the meantime, work is continuing on technology development for the NMD system.
The NMD system would be a fixed, land-based, non-nuclear missile defense
system with a space-based detection system, consisting of five elements:
- Ground Based Interceptors (GBIs)
- Battle Management, Command,
Control, and Communications (BMC3), which includes:
- Battle
Management, Command, and Control (BMC2), and
- In-Flight
Interceptor Communications System (IFICS)
- X-Band Radars (XBRs)
- Upgraded Early Warning Radar
(UEWR)
- Defense Support Program
satellites/Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS)
The Ground Based Inteceptor is the “weapon” of the NMD system. Its mission is to
intercept incoming ballistic missile warheads outside the earth’s atmosphere
(exoatmospheric) and destroy them by force of the impact. During flight, the
GBI is sent information from the NMD BMC2 through the IFICS to update the
location of the incoming ballistic missile, enabling the GBI onboard sensor
system to identify and home-in on the assigned target. The GBI element would
include the interceptor and associated launch and support equipment, silos,
facilities, and personnel. The GBI missile has two main components: an EKV and
solid propellant boosters. Each GBI site would be adequate in size to initially
accommodate 20 interceptor missiles, with expansion possible to as many as 100
interceptors. The GBI would be a dormant missile that would remain in the
underground launch silo until launch. Launches would occur only in defense of
the United States from a ballistic missile attack. There would be no flight
testing of the missiles at the NMD deployment site.
The NMD Battle Management, Command and Control (BMC2), a subelement of
the BMC3 element, is the “brains” of the NMD system. In the event of a launch
against the United States, the NMD system would be controlled and operated
through the BMC2 subelement. The BMC2 subelement providesextensive decision
support systems, battle management systems, battle management displays, and
situation awareness information. Surveillance satellites and ground radars
locate targets and communicate tracking information to battle managers, which
process the information and communicate target assignments to interceptors. The
BMC2 subelement operations would consist mostly of data processing and
management functions associated with the NMD system and function as the
centralized point for readiness, monitoring, and maintenance
The NMD In-Flight Interceptor
Communications System (IFICS) is a subelement of the BMC3 element
and would be geographically distributed ground stations that provide
communications links to the GBI for in-flight target and status information
between the GBI and the BMC2. Up to 14 IFICS (7 pairs) would be required to
support the NMD system. The IFICS would consist of a radio transmitter/receiver
enclosed in a 5.8-meter (19-foot) diameter inflatable radome adjacent to the
equipment shelters. The IFICS site would require no permanent onsite support
personnel. Personnel would only be required when the IFICS needs maintenance.
The X-band / Ground Based Radars
(XBR) would be ground based, multi-function radars. For
NMD, they would perform tracking, discrimination, and kill assessments of
incoming ballistic missiles. The radars use high frequency and advanced radar
signal processing technology to improve target resolution, which permits the
radar to more accurately discriminate between closely-spaced objects. The radar
would provide data from earlier phases of a ballistic missiles trajectory and
real-time continuous tracking data to the BMC2. The site would include a radar
mounted on its pedestal and associated control and maintenance facility,a power
generation facility, and a 150-meter (492-foot) controlled area. The radar
would be radiating during a ballistic missile threat, testing, exercises,
training, or when supporting collateral missions such as tracking space debris
or a Space Shuttle mission.
The Upgraded Early Warning Radar
(UEWR) are phased-array surveillance radars used to detect
and track ballistic missiles targeted at the United States. Software upgrades
to these existing early warning radars would provide the capability to support
NMD surveillance requirements.
Existing Defense Support Program satellites provide the U.S. early-warning
satellite capability. The satellites are comparatively simple, inertially
fixed, geosynchronous earth orbit satellites with an unalterable scan pattern. Space Based Infrared
System would replace the Defense Support Program satellites
sometime in the next decade. NMD would use whichever system is in place when a
deployment decision is made and can use a combination of the two if the
transition is still in progress. SBIRS would be an element that future NMD
systems would utilize. SBIRS is currently being developed by the Air Force
independently of NMD as part of the early warning satellite systemupgrade which
would replace the Defense Support Program satellites. For the NMD program, the
SBIRS constellation of sensor satellites would acquire and track ballistic
missiles throughout their trajectory. This information would provide the
earliest possible trajectory estimate to the BMC2 subelement.
To meet the
Capstone Requirements Document (CRD) requirements, the NMD Joint Project Office
(JPO) at BMDO has created a program to develop a defensive system that will
evolve through three levels of capability:
- Capability 1 satisfies CRD
Threshold requirements against unsophisticated threats. The Administration
and the Congress want the option of fielding this capability within three
years of a deployment decision. The system provides the required
performance against an unsophisticated rogue-state threat at the Threshold
level. The Threshold threat, the details of which are classified, is said
to consist of an attack of five single-warhead missiles with
unsophisticated decoys that could be discriminated, plus chaff, obscurant
particles, flares, jammers, and other countermeasures.
- Capability 2 provides the
required performance against any authorized, unauthorized, or accidental
attack by sophisticated payloads at the Threshold level. The Threshold
threat, the details of which are classified, is said to consist of an
attack of five single-warhead missiles, each with either a few (about
four) credible decoys that could not be descriminated [and would have to
be intercepted], plus chaff, obscurant particles, flares, jammers, and
other countermeasures.
- Capability 3 satisfies the CRD
Objective. The system provides the required performance against any
authorized, unauthorized, or accidental attack by sophisticated payloads
at the Objective level. The Objective, the details of which are
classified, is said to consist of an attack of twenty single-warhead missiles,
each with either a few (perhaps as many as five) credible decoys that
could not be descriminated [and would have to be intercepted], or a larger
number of less sophisticated decoys that could be discriminated, plus
chaff, obscurant particles, flares, jammers, and other countermeasures.
The relationship between these Capability performance requirements and
the Capability system architectures continues to evolve. The 1999 Welch Report
noted that the 2005 deployment, which with 100 interceptors would appear to be
the C2 Architecture, was in fact focused on addressing the far less stressing
C1 threat. The cost for the land-based NMD Capability 2 architecture with some
100 interceptors based in Alaska is about $13B to $14B for the post-FY97
RDT&E, procurement and military construction.
As of early 2000 the NMD program goes beyond the original Capability 1,
or "C1," architecture by developing an "Expanded C1"
architecture to be capable of defending all 50 states against threats larger
than the initial C1 architecture was designed to handle. The Expanded C1
deployment option builds on revised program guidance announced in 1999 year by
the Secretary of Defense. For planning purposes, the Expanded C1 system will
incorporate 100 ground-based interceptors based in Alaska and an advanced
X-Band radar based at Shemya Island, also in Alaska. Initial Operational
Capability (IOC) for the C1 architecture, consisting of 20 interceptors, will
take place in 2005. The full 100 can be deployed by Fiscal Year 2007. This
represents a two year delay from the plan outlined in 1999, under which the
first 20 interceptors could have beend deployed by 2003, with 100 interceptors
becoming operational by 2005.
Testing
The NMD program
is conducting a series of Integrated Flight Tests [IFT] to progressively
demonstrate system capabilities. The target system is built by Sandia National
Labs to replicate decoys that might be seen in threat systems Integrated Flight
Tests 3 and 4 were originally planned to be conducted in 1998.
- IFT-1, on 17 January 1997, did
not take place as planned when the Payload Launch Vehicle (PLV) carrying
the EKV failed to launch from Kwajalein Missile Range. A a data-link
malfunction between the PLV launcher and the ground control system which
led to the ground control system aborting the launch prior to liftoff of
the kill vehicle. A Multi-Service Launch System (MSLS) carrying target
objects for the sensor test was successfully launched from Vandenberg AFB
prior to the EKV launch abort, though no intercept of a target was to be
attempted for the test.
- IFT-1A, on 07 July 1997, was a
repeat of IFT-1 which BMDO claimed proved the ability of the
Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) sensor to identify and track objects in
space. An intercept was not intended for this mission, which used a
candidate infrared sensor built by Boeing. The claimed results of this
test have been disputed by many experts.
- IFT-2, on 15 January 1998,
proved the ability of the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle sensor to identify
and track objects in space. An intercept was not intended for this
mission, which used a candidate infrared sensor built by Hughes (now
Raytheon).
- IFT-3, on 02 October 1999,
successfully demonstrated "hit to kill technology" to intercept
and destroy the ballistic missile target. The target was simplied to
include a single decoy, rather than the multiple decoys used in the two
previous fly-by tests. Despite a failure in the star tracker, the inertial
measurement unit [IMU] of the interceptor oriented the EKV [built by
Boeing], which detected the decoy and based on this detection subsequently
detected the target warhead, which was destroyed on impact. Critics noted
that in this test the decoy paradoxically made it possible for the kill
vehicle to detect the warhead, whereas in a combat situation decoys would
make detection of the warhead more difficult. The intercept used
representatives or prototypes of other elements in a "shadow"
mode. They did not provide information to the interceptor as they would
during a full system test or during an actual missile attack.
- IFT-4, on 18 January 2000,
failed to intercept the target due to a failure of the EKV infrared homing
sensors' cooling system [built Raytheon / Hughes] a few seconds before the
planned intercept. This was the first test that integrated other elements
of the NMD system into the actual test scenario.
- IFT-5, on 7 July 2000, was the
first Integrated System Test featuring all NMD elements in the initial
capability except for the interceptor booster. The test failed when the
EKV did not separate from the surrogate booster used. As well, the test decoy
failed to inflate.
- IFT-6, which was originally
supposed to happen before the Deployment Readiness Review, is now
scheduled shortly thereafter. The planned test in late July 2000 slipped
to the Fall of 2000 and is now scheduled for late 2001. This test will be
the second Integrated System Test of all NMD elements in the initial
capability except for the interceptor booster.
- IFT-7 was scheduled for early
2001. This test was initially scheduled to bes the first test in which the
operational Ground Based Interceptor booster can be used to launch the
EKV. However, as of mid-2000 this event had been slipped to the following
test, IFT-8.
- IFT-8 was scheduled for
mid-2001. As of mid-2000 this test is the first test in which the
operational Ground Based Interceptor booster can be used to launch the
EKV, replacing the stand-in Payload Launch Vehicle (PLV) used in earlier
tests.
- IFT-9 is scheduled for late
2001.
- IFT-10 is scheduled for early 2002.
- IFT-11 is scheduled for
mid-2002.
- IFT-12 is scheduled for late
2002.
- IFT-13 is scheduled for early
2003. This test is the first test in which the operational Exoatmospheric
Kill Vehicle (EKV) can be used.
- IFT-14 is scheduled for
mi-2003.
- IFT-15 is scheduled for 2003.
- IFT-16 is scheduled for 2004.
- IFT-17 is scheduled for 2004.
- IFT-18 is scheduled for 2004.
- IFT-19 is scheduled for 2005.
Background
In mid 1993, the Department of Defense (DoD) conducted a Bottom-Up
Review (BUR) to select the strategy, force structure, and modernization
programs for America's defense in the post-Cold War era. With the dissolution
of the Soviet Union, the threat to the U.S. homeland from a deliberate or
accidental ballistic missile attack by states of the former Soviet Union (FSU)
or the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) was judged to be highly unlikely. In
addition, the ability of Third World countries to acquire or develop a long
range ballistic missile capability in the near future was considered uncertain.
As a prudent approach for responding to this uncertain threat, the Department
pursued a technology readiness strategy for National Missile Defense (NMD) to
develop and maintain the ability to deploy ballistic missile defenses for the
United States should a threat emerge.
Following the 1994 elections, some in the new Congress began to call for
the rapid acceleration of national missile defense development, leading to
deployment of a capable defense system as soon as possible. This shift toward
early deployment reflected a general sense that the risk of the rapid emergence
of a ballistic missile threat to the United States by determined rogue actors
was becoming increasingly acute. BMDO responded by creating a "Tiger
Team" to develop an NMD architecture capable of being deployed at the
earliest possible date to counter the developing rogue nation ballistic missile
threat. The threat scenario addressed by the Tiger Team was the acquisition of
SS-25-like technology by Libya. The Tiger Team considered a number of NMD alternatives,
including options to deploy a system as early as possible, if required. The
initial architecture the Tiger Team considered was 20 Minuteman ICBMs --
retrofitted with kinetic kill vehicles -- at Grand Forks AFB, ND, supported by
a network of existing Early Warning Radars (EWRs) operating with software
upgrades to provide the necessary track information as an emergency response
system.
In February 1996, the Department completed a comprehensive Ballistic
Missile Defense Program Review that addressed changes that have occurred in the
ballistic missile defense environment since the 1993 BUR. For the NMD program,
the findings of this review resulted in an adjustment to the goal of the NMD
program and a corresponding adjustment to the Future Years Defense Program
which includes additional resources in FY96-FY98 for NMD. The revised goal of
the NMD program is to develop, within three years, elements of an initial NMD
system that could be deployed within three additional years after a deployment
decision. This approach is commonly referred to as the NMD “3+3” program.
To achieve this goal, BMDO has initiated an NMD Deployment Readiness
Program. In April 1996 the USD(A&T) initiated steps to designate NMD as an
Acquisition Category (ACAT) 1D program and in July 1996 the program
successfully completed its first Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT)
review. The intent of the NMD Deployment Readiness Program is to position the
U.S. to respond to a strategic missile threat as it emerges by shifting emphasis
from technology readiness to deployment readiness. This approach focuses on
demonstrating an NMD system level capability by FY99, and being able to deploy
that capability within an additional three years, if required to do so by the
threat. If no threat materializes at the end of the three year development
period, evolutionary development will continue on a path towards an objective
system capability and the program will continue to maintain the ability to
deploy within three years after a decision is made to do so.
The NMD system is
composed of several elements which are required to perform the key functions
involved in a ballistic missile defense engagement. The Ground Based Radar
(GBR) and the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) Low component (previously
known as the Space and Missile Tracking System) provide the dual sensor
phenomenology required to address the full spectrum of potential threats. In
addition, Upgraded Early Warning Radars (UEWR) are candidate sensors in the
event of an early NMD deployment within three years of the FY99 NMD integrated
system test. SBIRS, which will provide midcourse tracking of targets, is
currently managed and funded by the Air Force. The Ground Based Interceptor
(GBI) is the weapon element that engages and destroys the threat. The Battle
Management/Command, Control, and Communications (BM/C3) element provides
engagement planning and human-in-control management of the engagement.
The formation of
the United Missile Defense Company (UMDC), a joint venture equally owned by
Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and TRW, was announced on April 21, 1997. The company
submitted a proposal in response to an RFP issued by the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization (BMDO) to conduct an NMD Lead System Integration (LSI)
Concept Definition (CD) study. The Lead Systems Integrator contractor has the
responsibility to design, develop, test, integrate, and potentially deploy and
sustain the National Missile Defense (NMD) system. The LSI integrates all NMD
element development to include the Ground Based Interceptor (GBI), Battle
Management Command, Control and Communications (BMC3), Ground Based Radar
(GBR), Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR), Forward Based X-Band Radar (FBXB),
and the Spaced Based Infrared Sensor (SBIRS-Low) system when it becomes available.
On 25 April 1997 the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization announced that two
contracts for the concept definition study phase of the National Missile
Defense (NMD) Lead Systems Integrator were awarded to United Missile Defense
Company, Bethesda, MD, and Boeing North American Inc., Downey, CA. At the end
of the initial contract period, one firm would be selected for award of a
contract to serve as the Lead Systems Integrator for the NMD program, currently
anticipated for April 1, 1998. The execution phase will include an Integrated
System Test in 1999, and culminate in a Deployment Readiness Review in 2000.
In fiscal years 1996 through 1998, Congress
authorized and appropriated a total of $1,174 million more than the President's
budget requests for those years. The fiscal year 1999 funding estimate does not
include amounts that will be needed beginning in fiscal year 2001 to develop
system improvements to keep up with changes in the threat. About $765 million
above the President's fiscal year 1999 budget estimate will be needed in fiscal
years 2001 through 2003
[7]
Future NMD funding requirements depend on how the system is designed and
when and where it will be deployed. The government and prime contractor have
not yet agreed on a final system design, and the deployment schedule and
location will not be known until at least the fiscal year 2000 deployment
review. To provide a basis for estimating near-term funding requirements, the
program office prepared four different life-cycle cost estimates, based on two
locations--one at Grand Forks, North Dakota, and the other in Alaska--and two
capability levels--one available in fiscal year 2003 and the other in fiscal
year 2006 [an initial operating capability would be established in fiscal year
2006, and the full operating capability would be achieved in fiscal year
2009.]. The life-cycle cost estimates show the total costs to develop and
produce system components, construct facilities, deploy the system, and operate
it for 20 years.
[7]
The 3+3 program is designed to enable a system to be deployed as early
as fiscal year 2003, but a more capable system could be operational in fiscal
year 2006. The primary differences between the two capability levels used in
the cost estimates are in the type and amount of hardware included. The more
capable system would have significantly more interceptors, fewer ground-based
radars, but would also include a space-based sensor system. The higher cost for
a deployment in Alaska by 2003 is due, in large part, to the fact that less
infrastructure currently exists there, transportation costs are higher, the
construction season is shorter, and the environment is harsher. After the
space-based sensor system is deployed, fewer ground-based radars will be needed
for an Alaskan deployment because of Alaska's location relative to potential
threats. The requirement for fewer radars is the primary reason an Alaskan
deployment by fiscal year 2006 was estimated to have a life-cycle cost slightly
less than a deployment at Grand Forks in that same timeframe. With fewer
radars, operating costs would also be lower in Alaska.
The Office of
Program Analysis and Evaluation prepared independent estimates of NMD program
costs in January 1998. Costs in the independent estimates were about 10 percent
higher than the estimates prepared by the program office, due primarily to the
fact that the independent estimates included "pre-planned product
improvements" not included in the program office estimates. [7]
Patriot
Missile Air Defense System, USA
Patriot is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air defence system to
counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft.
Patriot (MIM-104) is produced by Raytheon in Massachusetts and Lockheed Martin
Missiles and Fire Control in Florida.
"The Patriot missile is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air
defence system."
As well as the USA, Patriot is in service with Germany, Greece, Israel,
Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan. It has been cleared
for sale to Egypt.
[2]
Patriot missile systems were deployed by US forces during Operation
Iraqi Freedom. The systems were stationed in Kuwait and successfully destroyed
a number of hostile surface-to-surface missiles using the new PAC-3 and
guidance enhanced missiles.
PATRIOT
MISSILE
The Patriot
missile is equipped with a Track-Via-Missile (TVM) guidance system. Midcourse
correction commands are transmitted to the guidance system from the mobile
engagement control centre.
The target acquisition system in the missile acquires the target in the
terminal phase of flight and transmits the data using the TVM downlink via the
ground radar to the engagement control station for final course correction
calculations. The course correction commands are transmitted to the missile via
the missile track command uplink. The high-explosive 90kg warhead is situated
behind the terminal guidance section.
[2]
The range of the missile is 70km and maximum altitude is greater than
24km. The minimum flight time is the time to arm the missile, which is less
than nine seconds, and the maximum flight time is less than three and a half
minutes.
PATRIOT
GEM+UPGRADE
Raytheon has developed the Patriot Guidance Enhanced Missile (GEM+), an
upgrade to the PAC-2 missile. The upgrade involves a new fuse and the insertion
of a new low-noise oscillator which increases the seeker's sensitivity to low
radar cross-section targets.
The GEM+ missile provides an upgraded capability to defeat
air-breathing, cruise and ballistic missiles, as a compliment to the PAC-3
missile. The first upgrade forebodies were delivered to the US Army in November
2002. 376 missiles are being upgraded, of which 230 have been delivered.
PATRIOT
ADVANCED CAPABILITY (PAC-3)
A new Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) missile has increased
effectiveness against tactical ballistic and cruise missiles, through the use
of advanced hit-to-kill technology. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor
with Raytheon the systems integrator. The PAC-3 has a Ka-band millimetre wave
seeker developed by Boeing. The missile guidance system enables target
destruction through the kinetic energy released by hitting the target head-on.
16 PAC-3 missiles can be loaded on a launcher, compared to four PAC-2 missiles.
"The Patriot missile is equipped with a Track-Via-Missile (TVM)
guidance system."
PAC-3 entered low rate initial production in late 1999 and first LRIP
production missiles of a total of 92 were delivered in September 2001. A
contract for 88 missiles was placed in December 2002 and another for 12 in
March 2003. The missile was first deployed during Operation Iraqi Freedom in
March/April 2003. In February 2004, Lockheed Martin was awarded a production
contract for 159 PAC-3 missiles, which includes 22 missiles to replace those
expended in Iraq. Deliveries are to complete by April 2006.
A further contract for 156 missiles was received in February 2005. Of
these missiles, 32 are for the Netherlands and 16 for Japan under Foreign
Military Sales (FMS) agreements. Negotiations are also underway for sales to
South Korea and Taiwan. Lockheed Martin and EADS (formerly DaimlerChrysler
Aerospace) have established a joint venture company for the production of the
system for the German Air Force and, in September 2006, Germany requested the
FMS of 72 PAC-3 missiles.
M901
LAUNCHING STATION
The M901
launching station transports, points and launches the Patriot missile. Each
launcher has four missiles. The launcher is remotely operated via a VHF or
fibre optic data link from the engagement control station, which provides both
the missile prelaunch data and the fire command signal.
[2] [2]
ENGAGEMENT
CONTROL STATION
The AN/MSQ-104 engagement control station is the only manned station in
a Patriot fire unit. The control station communicates with the M901 launching
stations, with other Patriot batteries and the higher command headquarters.
The control station is manned by three operators, who have two consoles
and a communications station with three radio relay terminals. The digital
weapon control computer is located next to the VHF data link terminals.
RADAR
The AN/MPQ-53 phased array radar carries out search, target detection,
track and identification, missile tracking and guidance and Electronic
Counter-Ccountermeasures (ECCM) functions. The radar is mounted on a trailer
and is automatically controlled by the digital weapons control computer in the
engagement control station, via a cable link. The radar system has a range of
up to 100km, capacity to track up to 100 targets and can provide missile guidance
data for up to nine missiles.
The US Army Patriot radars are being upgraded by Raytheon. The upgrade
kits provide greater power for the radar and the addition of a wideband
capability for improved target discrimination.
"The M901 launching station transports, points and launches the
Patriot missile."
TARGET
ENGAGEMENT
A target engagement can be carried out in manual, semi-automatic or
automatic mode. When the decision has been made to engage the target, the
engagement control station selects the launch station or stations and
pre-launch data is transmitted to the selected missile. After launch, the
Patriot missile is acquired by the radar.
The command uplink and the TVM downlink allow the missile's flight to be
monitored and provide missile guidance commands from the weapon control
computer. As the missile approaches the target, the TVM guidance system is
activated and the missile is steered towards the target. A proximity fuse
detonates the high-explosive warhead.[2]
International
Space Station promote cooperation in space
About
MIR
Russia's Mir Space Station has been in orbit for over 10 years. The
first element of the station was launched on February 20, 1986 at an
inclination of 51.6 degrees. The current Mir Space Station is actually a
complex of different modules that have been pieced together.
The Mir module, the first module of the complex placed in orbit, is the
main module of the station. It provides docking ports for the other modules to
attach to. There are five docking ports on the transfer compartment of the Mir
module. One along the long axis of the module, and 4 along the radius in 90
degree increments. There is another docking port on the aft end of the Mir
module. The various modules that are attached to the docking ports can be moved
around to different configurations.
“Rendezvous”
The Soyuz-TM spacecraft is used to transport crews and cargo to and from
the Mir Space Station. The Soyuz can dock on the axial docking port on the
transfer compartment.
The Progress-M spacecraft is a cargo and resupply vehicle used to send
science equipment and data to and from Mir. It can also be used to conduct
experiments either while attached to the complex, or during free-flight. When
sent back to Earth, it can also be used to remove waste materials from the
Space Station.
To view pictures and virtual reality clips of the Mir space station,
visit our RKA Pictures page. To see where the Mir is right now, visit our new
Java applet, Liftoff's Spacecraft Tracking System, or our current Mir location
page.[16]
International
cooperation
This image was recorded by astronauts as the Space Shuttle Atlantis
approached the Russian space station prior to docking during the STS-76
mission. Sporting spindly appendages and solar panels, Mir is seen orbiting
about 350 kilometers above New Zealand's South Island and the city of Nelson
near Cook Strait.
[30]
In September 1993 U.S. Vice-President Al Gore and Russian prime minister
Viktor Chernomyrdin announced plans for a new space station, which would later
be called the International Space Station, or ISS. They also agreed that, in
preparation for this new project, the U.S. would be largely involved in the Mir
project in the years ahead, under the code name Phase One (the ISS being Phase
Two). Space shuttles would take part in the transportation of supplies and
people to and from Mir. U.S. astronauts would live on Mir for many months on
end. Thus the U.S. could share and learn from the unique experience that Russia
had with long duration space trips.
The American Space Shuttle Atlantis docked to the Russian Mir Space
Station
Starting from March 1995 seven U.S. astronauts consecutively spent 28
months on Mir. During their stay the space station went through rough times and
several acute emergencies occurred, notably a large fire on February 23, 1997,
and a collision with a Progress (unmanned) cargo ship on June 25, 1997. In both
occasions complete evacuation (there was a Soyuz escape craft for return to
earth) was avoided by a narrow margin. The second disaster left a hole in the
Spektr module, which then was sealed off from the rest of the station. Several
space walks were needed to restore full power to Mir (one of the "space
walks" was inside the Spektr module from which all the air had escaped).
The cooperation between the U.S. and Russia proved far from easy.
Distrust, lack of coordination, language problems, different views of each
others' responsibilities and divergent interests caused many problems. After
the emergencies, the U.S. Congress and NASA considered whether the U.S. should
abandon the program out of concern for astronauts' safety. NASA administrator
Daniel S. Goldin decided to continue the program. In June 1998, the final U.S.
Mir astronaut Andy Thomas left the station aboard the Space Shuttle Discovery.
The story of Phase One is described in great detail by Bryan Burrough in
his book Dragonfly: NASA and the Crisis Aboard Mir (1998).
The Mir space station was originally planned to be followed by a Mir 2,
and elements of that project, including the core module (now called Zvezda)
which was labeled as "Mir-2" for quite some time in the factory, are
now an integral part of the International Space Station.[30]
List
of Mir Expeditions
This table shows us how many different
nations cooperate in one space station:
|
Expedition |
Crew |
Launch |
Flight
Up |
Landing |
Flight
Down |
Duration |
|
125.00 |
||||||
|
Mir LD-1 |
February 5,
1987 |
December
29, 1987 |
326.48 |
|||
|
Mir EO-2 |
February 5,
1987 |
174.14 |
||||
|
Mir EP-1 |
7.96 |
|||||
|
Soyuz TM-3 |
December
29, 1987 |
160.30 |
||||
|
Mir LII-1 |
December
21, 1987 |
December
29, 1987 |
7.92 |
|||
|
Mir EO-3 |
December
21, 1987 |
December
21, 1988 |
365.24 |
|||
|
Mir EP-2 |
9.84 |
|||||
|
Mir EP-3 |
September
7, 1988 |
8.85 |
||||
|
Mir LD-2 |
240.94 |
|||||
|
Mir EO-4 |
November
26, 1988 |
151.47 |
||||
|
Mir Aragatz |
November
26, 1988 |
December
21, 1988 |
24.76 |
|||
|
Mir EO-5 |
September
5, 1989 |
February
19, 1990 |
166.29 |
|||
|
Mir EO-6 |
February
11, 1990 |
179.05 |
||||
|
Mir EO-7 |
December
10, 1990 |
130.86 |
||||
|
Mir EO-8 |
December 2,
1990 |
175.08 |
||||
|
Mir |
December 2,
1990 |
December
10, 1990 |
7.91 |
|||
|
Mir LD-3 |
311.83 |
|||||
|
Mir Juno |
7.88 |
|||||
|
Mir EO-9 |
October 10,
1991 |
144.64 |
||||
|
Mir EO-10 |
175.12 |
|||||
|
Mir Austromir |
October 10,
1991 |
7.93 |
||||
|
Mir EO-11 |
145.59 |
|||||
|
Mir 92 |
7.91 |
|||||
|
Mir Antares |
13.79 |
|||||
|
Mir EO-12 |
February 1,
1993 |
188.90 |
||||
|
Mir EO-13 |
January 24,
1993 |
179.03 |
||||
|
Mir EO-14 |
January 14,
1994 |
196.74 |
||||
|
Mir Altair |
20.67 |
|||||
|
Mir LD-4 |
437.75 |
|||||
|
Mir EO-15 |
182.02 |
|||||
|
Mir EO-16 |
November 4,
1994 |
125.95 |
||||
|
Mir Euromir 94 |
November 4,
1994 |
31.52 |
||||
|
Mir EO-17 |
169.22 |
|||||
|
Mir EO-18 |
Vladimir
Dezhurov, |
115.36 |
||||
|
Mir EO-19 |
September
11, 1995 |
75.47 |
||||
|
Mir EO-20 - |
Yuri Gidzenko, |
September
3, 1995 |
February
29, 1996 |
179.07 |
||
|
Mir EO-21 |
February
21, 1996 |
September
2, 1996 |
193.80 |
|||
|
Mir NASA-1 |
Shannon W. Lucid - U.S.A. |
September
26, 1996 |
188.17 |
|||
|
Mir EO-22 |
196.73 |
|||||
|
Mir Cassiopée |
Claudie Haigneré - France |
September
2, 1996 |
15.77 |
|||
|
Mir NASA-2 |
John E. Blaha - U.S.A. |
September
16, 1996 |
January 22,
1997 |
128.23 |
||
|
Mir NASA-3 |
Jerry
M. Linenger - U.S.A. |
January 12,
1997 |
132.17 |
|||
|
Mir EO-23 |
February
10, 1997 |
184.92 |
||||
|
Mir 97 |
Reinhold Ewald - Germany |
February
10, 1997 |
19.69 |
|||
|
Mir NASA-4 |
C. Michael Foale - U.S.A. |
144.57 |
||||
|
Mir EO-24 |
February
19, 1998 |
197.73 |
||||
|
Mir NASA-5 |
David A. Wolf - U.S.A. |
September
26, 1997 |
January 31,
1998 |
127.83 |
||
|
Mir NASA-6 |
Andrew
S. W. Thomas - U.S.A. |
January 23,
1998 |
140.63 |
|||
|
Mir EO-25 |
January 29,
1998 |
207.53 |
||||
|
Mir Pégase |
Léopold Eyharts - France |
January 29,
1998 |
February
19, 1998 |
20.69 |
||
|
Mir EO-26 |
February
28, 1999 |
198.69 |
||||
|
Mir EO-26/27 |
379.62 |
|||||
|
Mir EP-4 |
11.82 |
|||||
|
Mir Stefanik |
February
20, 1999 |
February
28, 1999 |
7.91 |
|||
|
Mir EO-27 - |
Viktor
Afanasyev, |
February
20, 1999 |
188.85 |
|||
|
Mir EO-28 |
72.82 |
[33]
VII. CONCLUSION
Both the United States and Russia are subject to all major international
treaties and agreements that require using space for peaceful purposes only. It
is in the interests of all humankind to ensure that the research and usage of
outer space, including the moon and other celestial objects, pursues peaceful
goals so that all may benefit.
So far the space sphere is free from weaponry, as opposed to the land,
sea and air spheres, which have all served as theaters of war. It is indeed
important to preserve space from further militarization.
Space holds great potential for future military uses. Direct deployment
of weapons in space would allow for the targeting of objects both on the earth
and in space and for the use of conventional and nuclear munitions, lasers,
electromagnetic pulses and other forms of directed energy. These can all be
considered to be strategic-class uses due to their ability to destroy strategic
global information systems.
Over the past 50 years, humans have made significant strides in space
exploration. What rises above the specific details of these accomplishments,
however, is the worldwide effort and cooperation that made them possible.
We believe that the growing spirit of collaboration, linked to the
growing number of nations and organizations involved in space and the increasing
scope of global space activity, will provide the framework required for even
greater accomplishments.
VIII. Abbreviations
NASA-
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
HST- Hubble Space Telescope
ESA- European Space Agency
ISS- International Space Station
DFH-
Dong Fang Hong
FSW-
Fanhui Shi Weixing
FY-
Feng Yun
DQ-
Da Qi
SJ-
Shi Jian
JSSW-
Ji Shu Shiyan Weixing
ZY-
Zi Yuan
FB-
Feng Bao
CZ-
Chang Zheng (Long March)
PLA-
People’s Liberation Army
RKA- Russian Space Agency??
JAXA-
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
ICBM- Intercontinental ballistic missile
RMS-
Remote Manipulator System
NASDA-
National Aeronautics and Space Development Agency
EOSAT- Earth Observation Satellite
ISRO-
The Indian Space Research Organization
SLV-
Satellite Launch Vehicle
ASLV- Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle
CAST- Center for Applied Special Technology
CAT-
Computer-aided tomography
MRI-
magnetic resonance imaging
CCD-charged
coupled device
TACS-
Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System
LACE-
Liquid Air Cooled Engine
CIA-
Central Intelligence Agency
IACG-
Inter-Agency Consultative Group
COPUOS-
Committee on
the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
CBM-
confidence-building measure
UNIDIR-
United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research
CD-
Conference on Disarmament
PAROS-
the prevention of an arms race in outer space
WMD- Weapons of mass destruction
NMD-
National Missile Defense
ABM-
Anti-Ballistic Missile
GBIs-
Ground Based Interceptors
BMC3-
Battle Management, Command, Control, and Communications
BMC2-
Battle Management, Command, and Control
IFICS-
In-Flight Interceptor Communications System
XBRs-
X-Band Radars
UEWR-
Upgraded Early Warning Radar
SBIRS-
Space-Based Infrared System
CRD-
Capstone Requirements Document
JPO-
Joint Project Office
IFT-
Integrated Flight Tests
MSLS-
Multi-Service Launch System
EKV-
Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle
PLV-
Payload Launch Vehicle
IMU-
inertial measurement unit
DoD-
Department of Defense
BUR-
Bottom-Up Review
FSU-
former Soviet Union
PRC-
Peoples Republic of China
EWR-
Early Warning Radar
ACAT-
Acquisition Category
GBR-
Ground Based Radar
UMDC-
United Missile Defense Company
BMDO-
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
LSI-
Lead System Integration
TVM-
Track-Via-Missile
GEM-
Guidance Enhanced Missile
FMS-
Foreign Military Sales
ECCM-
Electronic Counter-Ccountermeasures
IX. Sources
Web
sites
1.
Apollo-Soyuz
Test Project:
www.nasa.gov
2.
Army-technology.com:
www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/
CNS:
3.
http://cns.miis.edu/research/SPACE TREATIES.htm
4.
http://cns.miis.edu/research/space/cnsres.htm
5.
Cooperation
in the space race: www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/asiatech/archives/2006/11/chindia_-_coope.html
6.
Ethical
atheist:
www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/benefits_of_space_program.html
7.
FAS:
www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/
8.
Fox News:
9.
Global
Security.org:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space.
10.
Institute
for Defense and Disarmament Studies. “Preventing the Weaponization of Space”:
http://www.idds.org/issSpaceweaponization.html
11.
Moscow
defense brief:
http://www.mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2001/mas/tcsmec/
12.
NASA:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/htm
13.
Newspaper
Online: www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/january/31/wallace/
14.
RIA
Novosti
15.
Russian
space agency:
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/mir.html
Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
16.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/spacerace/sec300img/311/5a.jpg
17.
htpp://www.nasmsiedu/exhibition/gal114/sec500/sec560.htm
18.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/spacerace/sec500/sec573.htm
Space.com:
19.
http://www.space.com/news/wsc_cia_1014.html
20.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ap_soyuz_workhorse_050801.html
21.
www.space.com/news/spacehistory/YIR_spacebiz_991228.html
Space Seciruty.org:
22.
www.spacesecurity.org/ssi2004lawspoliciesanddoctrines.pdf
23.
http://www.oosa.2004unvienna.org/spaceLaw/outersptxt.htm
24.
http://www.oosa.unviena.org/Soregister.htm
25.
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/spaceLaw/outersptxt.htm
26.
http://spacesecurity.org/en.asp
27.
UN
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space: http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/spacelaw/outerspt.html
28.
US Air
Force, Counter Space Operations (AFDD 2-2.1), 2.8.04: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/afdd2_2_1.pdf
Wikipedia:
29.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir
30.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA
31.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Federal_Space_Agency
32.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mir_Expeditions
33.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_program
34.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPACE_burial
35.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_disasters
Books
36.
Graham
John F.,Photos courtesy NASA 1995
37.
Powell's
Books - Star Crossed Orbits Inside the Us Russia by James Oberg:
www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey
Journals
and periodical
38.
People’s
Daily on Line. Last updated at : (Beijing Time) Friday, October 10, 2003 China
not to take part in any form of space arms race:
http://www.tnglish.peopledaily.com.cn
39.
Defense
News 10.1.05
Official
documents
40.
12/10/2005
General Assembly GA/DIS/3302 Department of Public Information • News and Media
Division • New York Sixtieth
General Assembly First Committee 10th Meeting (PM)
41.
Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty (1972): http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/abm/abm2.html
42.
BULLETEN
20. Bulletin 20 - Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space
43.
CD
28.3.2002
44.
Convention
on the Registration of Space Objects Launched into Outer Space (1976): http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/liailitytxt.htm
45.
Disarmament
Documentation: Anniversary of Outer Space Treaty: www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0210/doc11.htm
46.
GA 26.9.01
47.
Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (1987): http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/18432.htm
48.
Limited
Test Ban Treaty (1963):
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/ltbt/text/ltbt2.htm
49.
Press release. 07.08.03
China accepts “Five Ambassadors” proposal on prevention of an arms race in
outer space
as amended Conference on Disarmament Hears Statements by Indonesia, Italy,
Ukraine, China, Russian Federation, and the President of the Conference
http://www2.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/dc0333e.htm
50.
Report of
the Secretary-General-. on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3-14
June 1992 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.93.I.8 and corrigenda), vol.
I: Resolutions Adopted by the Conference, resolution 1, annex II. www.un.org/events/unispace3/docs/sgrep.htm
51.
State
government. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial
Bodies. www.stategov/t/ac/trt/5181/htm#treaty
52.
Strategic
Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) I Interim Agreement (1972): http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/salt1/text/salt1.htm
53.
Strategic
Arms Reductions Treaty (START) I (1991): http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/18535.htm
54.
The Moon
Treaty (1979):
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/moontxt.htm
55.
The Outer
Space Treaty (1967):
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/spaceLaw/outersptxt.htm
56.
Conference
report “Safeguarding Space Security”:
www.china-un.ch/eng/cjjk/cjjblc/t203796.htm
57.
CONFERENCE
REPORT ”Safeguarding Space Security: Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space”
Geneva 21-22 March 2005
www.unoosa.org/oosa/index.html
58.
Disarmament
Documentation: Anniversary of Outer Space Treaty http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0210/doc11.htm
59.
SPACE
SECURITY 2003 A Research Report Prepared for the International Security Bureau
of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Ottawa, Canada, March 2004. p.34.
60.
IDDS
correspondence with Libby Green, Foreign and Commonwealth Office 9.6.05
Pictures
61.
INTERNATIONAL
SPACE STATION (ISS) ALPHA CONSTRUCTION WEB SITE
www.geocities.com/i_s_s_alpha/PICS/mir.jpg
62.
Mental landscape.com
www.mentallandscape.com/V_Sputnik2b.jpg
63.
Smithsonian National Air and
Space museum:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/spacerace/sec300img/311l5p5b.jpg
64.
Smithsonian National Air and
Space museum:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/spacerace/sec300img/311l5p5a.jpg
65. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/spacerace/sec300img/312l1p1.jpg
66.
Smithsonian National Air and
Space museum:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/spacerace/sec300img/340l4p4.jpg
67. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/spacerace/sec300img/390l2p2.jpg
68. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/spacerace/sec300img/390l2p2b.jpg
69. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/spacerace/sec300img/314l1p1.jpg
70.
Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/spacerace/sec500img/570L12P12.jpg
71. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/spacerace/sec500img/sts71.gif
72. Smithsonian National Air and Space museum:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/spacerace/sec500img/570l13m13.JPG
73.
Smithsonian National Air
and Space museum:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/spacerace/sec500img/570L14P14.jpg
74.
Smithsonian National Air
and Space museum:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/spacerace/sec500img/570L14P14a.jpg
75.
Smithsonian National Air
and Space museum:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/spacerace/sec500img/570L14P14b.jpg
Back to:
Non-treaty
approaches to space security